One effort to remedy this strategic deficiency identified by Gawthrop was undertaken by Joint Chiefs of Staff analyst Stephen Coughlin, who published his finding in his master’s thesis at the National Defense Intelligence University, “To Our Great Detriment”: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad. In his thesis, Coughlin examines texts from multiple schools of Islamic jurisprudence to evaluate the respective traditions on jihad and their contemporary use by Islamic terrorists, concluding that failing to investigate these sources has left our military “disarmed in the war of ideas.”

Coughlin’s thesis had barely seen the light of day before he was sacked from his position with the Joint Chiefs, having running afoul of another Pentagon official, Hesham Islam, a top-ranked Muslim advisor to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who took issue with Coughlin’s academic analysis.

Another vocal critic identifying this wide gap in our military’s strategic studies is Army LTC Joseph Myers. He has recently voiced his concerns in an interview with Congressional Quarterly and in a review article published in the Army War College journal Parameters, where he argues that understanding the Islamic doctrine of war is a basic necessity for our military leadership:

To understand war, one has to study its philosophy, the grammar and logic of your opponent. Only then are you approaching strategic comprehension. To understand the war against Islamist terrorism one must begin to understand the Islamic way of war, its philosophy and doctrine, the meanings of jihad in Islam — and one needs to understand that those meanings are highly varied and utilitarian depending on the source.

In an assessment published last May, Myers adds that the failure to study the strategy of jihadists leaves our own military strategy aimless and increases our long-term vulnerability to further terrorist attacks:

National security strategy is policy and policy implies a theory — a theory for action. To date we have no concrete theory of action because we have no fully articulated global threat model. We are seven years into a global war with armed combat and many dead and wounded, and yet still lack a common analytic paradigm to describe and model the enemy. It is a stunning failure to propel the country to war without a fully elaborated threat model that clarifies and specifies the enemy and makes clear our true objectives.

The lack of a threat model and a theory for action explains our schizophrenia, our failures, and homeland security shortcomings.

Understanding the enemy — “the threat,” his threat doctrine and the authoritative statements, sources, and philosophy undergirding that doctrine — is a primary duty. That is the first step in developing a threat model. It is the vital step in the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield process, to template enemy doctrine by laying it over the terrain: the physical, human, and cultural terrain to understand its manifestations in reality. These are the first relevant questions to be answered for U.S. national security analysis.

This intellectual and strategic groundwork for the “long war” against Islamic terrorism will never be accomplished as long as our senior service schools and military academies continue to neglect this vital area of strategic study. Regardless of what one might think about the relation between Islamic theology and jihadist justifications for terror, it is a fact that they believe they are operating in accordance with Islamic tradition. Islamic war doctrine ought to be studied on that basis alone.

But returning to Sun Tzu’s maxim, perhaps the root of our military’s strategic schizophrenia is not so much about our refusal to understand our enemies as much as it is a failure to understand ourselves. As a nation, we no longer have a sense of who we are, what we believe, or even why we fight. At the height of World War II, would a faculty member at the Army War College have even considered attempting to defend Nazi fascism or Japanese imperialism, as War College professor Sherifa Zuhur has now done with Hamas? That is a fitting testimony of how far we are from both aspects of Sun Tzu’s counsel.

180 Comments, 180 Threads

1.
Doug

To further summarize another key point of Sun Tzu’s study on war is that the ultimate victory is conquering your enemy without having fight. Perhaps these key Islamist apologetics listed in your article, and PC politicians are paving the way for that possibility — for the terrorists.

You have to be kidding me. At the most basic tactical level this isn’t that important, because fighting insurgents in one part of the world is rather like fighting them in another. You try something, it works or it doesn’t, and you move on. The fight is really about whether the locals are friendly to the terrorists, or to our soldiers. However, if you get above that lowest tactical level, the most elemental level of fighting, the philosophy of warfare is very different from one culture to another. Understanding this difference is *very* important, and understanding the enemy is especially important too. We *can* win this war without studying Islamic extremism, but if we try, it’ll cost us a lot more lives, time, and treasure.

To put a Sherifa Zuhur in the Army war college is just like placing Goebbels as an adviser on German intentions. The public and the Army must get this through their skull: Muslims do not immigrate to integrate. they immigrate to conquer. A Sherifa Zuhur in Army war college is fifth column at its best.

It sounds to me as if the idea that islam is a “religion of peace” has finally trickled down through the military. Did this sort of stuff happen under Rummy, or is it a Gates phenomenon (which sounds about right)?

Then again, we’re a highly individualistic society that uses the same unrealistic “rules of war”, no matter the cultures of the enemies (a very tribal and anti-individualistic set of cultures in the arab/persian/muslim world) so … no big surprise. This is going to be very ugly.

This is interesting – I am officer in the Air Force Reserve and as part of my professional military education undertook the quasi-equivalent coursework via correspondence (called Air War College). Imagine my surprise when I was reading excerpts of Mao’s little red book during one section of that curricula. However, the main premise of this article is sound. We must understand the perspective of ALL around us—in peace and in war–and to do that we must read their literature and understand the motivations of their leaders and people, their history and desires. If we do not do that, we fail not only strategically but eventually tactically.

This is submission. Muslims will win their war against Western Civilization unless they overplay their hands. It is now verboten in polite circles to “blaspheme” “the prophet”. It will soon be illegal.

The is unlikely to be any real “change” once Dumbo becomes President. Articles such as this and others that shine the light of day on this fifth column are the only real hope for “change” we have. If there is enough Congressional interest, we will at least see the application of the Peter Principle whereby that pressure will force the change, but it will be mostly cosmetic.

The basic problem with the study of Islam is that much of the Koran embraces principles which to the Western mind and framework of thinking often seems to be a form of insanity.
Western thinkers cannot understand how Islamists think because their education includes enlightened philosophies including basic human rights, freedom of expression and association, and the right to oppose any thinking for any or no reason. Islam doesn’t allow for any of the basic principles that the Judeo Christian West considers essential for modern, moral human life. Indeed, if one even takes even a superficial look at the Koran, one quickly comes to the conclusion that Mohammed was either from some other planet than earth or was an escaped mental patient.

Just as a real understanding of the enemy in Vietnam, and the unconventional methods necessary to fight him, was primarily the property of junior officers and senior NCOs who made it their business to educate themselves on guerrilla warfare, Mao and the Chinese communists, and Asian civilization generally, so to much our rising junior officers and senior NCOs make it their business to add an understanding the history of Islam, current radical Islamic doctrine, and the complex civilizations of both the Levant and Southwest Asia since the disintegration of the Roman Empire. I’m sure there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of our most promising future leaders who are hard at that task even now.

I live in Jerusalem, as do many hamas supporters. I know this because their flags are all over the old city and they are openly supportive. What most people fail to see is that for people of islam there is only one objective–for the entire world to be islam. Even arabs who are non-religious, and do not support fatah or hama say the same thing. Regardless of who is right or wrong, or what “deals” are brokered their end goal is for the entire world to be islam–and don’t forget, for these people to die for this goal is better than living– which is why they are willing strap on a bomb and send their babies off to blow up buses.

Understanding your enemy is not the same as being duped by so obviuous a Quisling within the ranks. Might I suggest watching the movie “Fitna” at least once. That is all the understanding you will ever need.

What an excellent article. I think my greatest concern, at this time, is that although I heard President Bush proclaim that Islam is a peaceful religion, in the back of my mind I felt that working under the radar he and the administration knew differantly and conducted themselves accordingly. I feel no assurance with this new soon to administration.

I remember reading a book about a Seal during Vietnam thinking that the villagers loved him because every time he walked through, the women and children would run up and touch him, he thought adoringly. He later found out that it was their way to pass on evil spirits. Why didn’t he know that? Was that the beginning of our opaque vision?

Islam has been around for many many years, it is unforgivable that we are not more knowledgeable of it and it’s founder. It is unforgivable that we have allowed history to be rewritten making the West and Israel always the villian in history and Islam always the innocent victim.

It is alarming that many of the voices who understand the Islamic faith and understand how it spread so quickly in the 7th century are often silenced when they speak up, their warnings brushed aside as trivial. I think there is sound reason to be concerned how the Obama administration will fight this War.

If you are a female I would suggest you seriously think about how your life would be under Islamic rule.
A female is property of the man. If you piss him off he can just kill you and claim you dishonored the family name. Don’t think about getting an education or anything else that might allow you to live your own life because you can’t.

The Koran teaches it’s followers that there are no boundaries when it comes to defeating the Infidel.
We all either submit to their faith and rule or face extermination it is that plain and simple.
THAT is what their Koran teaches. When a follower of the Koran denies that they are simply following the Korans teachings on how to overcome resistance to Islam.
Remember as Infidels westerners have no standing, we are simply non believers to be used or discarded (eliminated) as the followers of Islam see fit. What ever tactics it takes to overcome the Western resistance to Islam is fair game.
The West culture of “Political Correctness” will allow the Islamist to basically win the war without firing a shot.

Wake the **** up people. Our Freedom in the west was not Given to us, it was Earned by the hard sacrifice of many before us.
Life is not and never will be a dream world devoid of all hardships where everything is provided to everyone.
Freedom is not some ride at Disney World to ride whenever you get the urge.
It requires constant upkeep and maintenance and a watchful eye.
A lot of blood was spilled to secure our freedom, being “Politically Correct” no matter how noble it sounds will not keep our Freedom intact.

If the west will not stand up and aggressively defend the freedom that our forefathers made possible then we get just what we deserve.

I’d be amazed if our officer corps is not reading up on this anyway, official curricula or not. Yes, we have our dead wood, but we also have many of the best and brightest our country can offer.

I’m annoyed that we pay lip service to a malignant philosophy, but we allied ourselves with Stalin to fight Hitler. Sometimes reality trumps idealism and pushing all the world’s Muslims into the enemy camp can’t be a good idea.

“Sometimes reality trumps idealism and pushing all the world’s Muslims into the enemy camp can’t be a good idea.”

And who is doing this? I am not aware of any center-right or center-left thinker that is describing all Muslims as terrorists. The United States indeed did have to ally itself with Stalin to defeat Hitler. But what does that have to do with our present realities? Is there a greater threat that requires our collaboration with radical Islamists?

Maybe “24″ is preying on my mind, but I’ve thought for a while that our entire government (Republican and Democrat, but Democrats more) has been infiltrated and compromised by pro-Islamists. The CIA and State Dept. are the most obvious examples.

It’s not true that students at the Army War College are prohibited from reading texts by Islamic radicals. There was an allegation to that effect on Mr. Ricks’ blog by someone who based it on something said to him by an unknown person after he had spent a couple of days at the College a few years ago.

As a degree granting institution, the Army War College operates under a policy of academic freedom. Dr. Zuhur’s study on Hamas said, and I quote, “The views expressed in this report are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the
Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S.
Government.” For some reason, Mr. Ricks neglected to mention that in his blog entry.

In the same spirit of political correctness every Air Force fighter squadron now has a lawyer attached to tell the CO what he can and can not do to defeat our enemies. God help us all. If that had been the case 40 years ago over North Vietnam, I would have been long dead.

“[T]he failure to study the strategy of jihadists leaves our own military strategy aimless and increases our long-term vulnerability to further terrorist attacks.”

I disagree. The professional officers are likely reading everything they can get their hands on. They’ll fight effectively.

But failing to lead the study about jihad will serve to make the centers for doctrine — such as the War College — increasingly irrelevant, and force the field officers to make up doctrine on the ground.

The risk is that they all go native, and the army fragments by theater into separate cultures. We know this because it’s happened before.

It looks like the Army leadership is reluctant to develop a doctrine that identifies Islam as the opponent because it would clash with their oath to defend the Constitution and its defense of religious freedom. However, that ignores the fact that Islam is a trojan horse for an authoritarian political program which is antithetical to our Constitution and should be opposed.

I do not have a problem with publishing Zuhur’s piece. It is not an endorsement to do so.

There is no coherent set of policies in the college, only a multitude of views. It doesn’t make sense to claim one piece is an endorsement and another piece speculation. (note I realize these are two separate people, though the publisher analogy is apt)

I agree with the position that the college should be looking at all possibilities. Even the Zuhur piece, though as described I disagree with, would describe how supporters of Hamas see themselves and Hamas. That is useful information even if the supporters are deluded.

This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read in a long time. We all know that such dangerous PC nonsense has spread to every college, university and high school in this country as well as the media. But to think that the war college is pushing this insanity is really frightening. I understand comment #28, that “academic freedom” must be allowed in degree-awarding institutions, but we all know that in many colleges any views that don’t toe the liberal line are just not allowed. Of course they’re allowed by law but professors and students know that there will often be severe repercussions in terms of grades and career prospects if right-of-center views are expressed or taught. We have got to wise up. But it may already be too late. What can ordinary citizens do to combat this?

As a recently retired Colonel I can tell you without doubt, the reason the military leadership does not want to teach its officers the ugly truth about Islam at any of our war colleges or make it required reading is that they are afraid it will become obvious very soon that Islam is not a religion of peace, but just the opposite. I am convinced that either General officers really do know this or that they are too disinterested to make the efforts to understand Islam. This is because they are fearful of being called a “racist” or engaging in “hate speech” and thereby ruin their careers. If any of you know a General officer, go to him or her and ask why we are fighting. They will tell you it is a war against “terror.” Try to pin them down on Islam being the true cause of the war and believe me, they will equivocate, evade and do anything they can to avoid giving you an honest answer. At most, they might state that we are fighting Islamic extremists but they will never publicly admit that Islam is not a religion of peace.

The lack of familiarity with the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya will be lethal to our civilization. For advancing the jihad and success against the kafir, Muslims are allowed to deceive the unbeliever.

The Christian and Jewish concept of sin is basically absent in Islam. There is no understanding of or even notation of The Golden Rule in Islam. To Muslims we are essentially untermenschen and they can pretty much do what they want with us, which is why, using taqiyya, they have convinced the Defense Department and much of our government, media, and academia to bend over the grab the ankles.

Their ethics of expediency exactly matches that of the Marxists, which is another thing they have in common and one of the reasons why they are in alliance against us. Political correctness is a legal/cultural/institutional device of repression of thought which the Marxists have successfully implemented, and which the Muslims take complete advantage of.

Wonder what would happen in Sherifa Zuhur’s class if one of the students were to show her and everyone the Hamas charter? And the charters of all the other Palestinian terror groups, including the PLO’s?

Also a retired Colonel, and not worried much. I don’t like, or agree, with anything Zuhur writes, or the Army defense of her. However, these are not college students, despite the name. These are Lt Cols and Colonels, not the next generation of officers, they are the next generation of generals. They have been around the flag pole a few times, if memory serves me right, they are conservative and vote roughly 85% Republican. I suspect nearly all have college degrees, and most have graduate degrees. In today’s Army, they are probably all combat veterans. No silly Islamic propogandist is going to sway them.

Now do you understand why the military command structure is so quick to prosecute enlisted men for war crimes? Remember the female officer who refused to cover her face and quit driving in public in Saudi Arabia? What happened to her?
The truth of all this nonsense is that oil money is buying America, one barrel at a time.

“Wonder what would happen in Sherifa Zuhur’s class if one of the students were to show her and everyone the Hamas charter? And the charters of all the other Palestinian terror groups, including the PLO’s?” <—– you may want to read the monograph. It addresses that.

google up Dr. Sherifa Zuhur and you will find that she APPEARS as a Westernized, secularized Arab. I think this woman is either deep cover for the Ummah or is a cultural Marxist hybrid straddling both the Western Left and her Islamic roots. She wears no hijab and certainly none of the required wardrobe associated with female modesty in the Muslim world.

Those who are familiar with the late Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University (and one of the influences in Barack Obama’s life) would know that he also straddled the intersection of Marxism and Islam, appearing as a secularized Westerner all the while engaging in destructive deception and poor scholarship (that is now being blasted away by more entrepid, thorough scholars in his field).

Like I said in my post above, these people are masters of deception and they share similar ethics with the Marxists.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The long term use of Islamist propaganda will subtly but most assuredly convert the elite military culture. At the minimum, it will confuse them. The very repetition eventually wears down even the strongest among us.

google up Dr. Sherifa Zuhur and you will find that she APPEARS as a Westernized, secularized Arab. I think this woman is either deep cover for the Ummah or is a cultural Marxist hybrid straddling both the Western Left and her Islamic roots. She wears no hijab and certainly none of the required wardrobe associated with female modesty in the Muslim world <—- I believe Dr. Zuhur would tell you that she never claimed to be “secularized” any more than born again Christians would. She is as American as any of us here.

No Westerner’s fluffy education about Islam would survive long after they are actually on the job. The CIA and State Department are not compromised. They are fully aware how much crazy is out there. The only real opinions out there are how closely can the West work with the non-crazies, and how much can we do to change the minds of the crazies.

Although calling them crazy is not very productive, but hell, read some Al Queda propoganda and try to convince me they aren’t looney tunes.

The comment of Yuval Brandstetter MD (#3) is thwe vwery first thing which crossed my mind.

While I agree these officers are not college kids, how about “fair and balanced” analyses? They shouldn’t have to be surfing Amazon or the mil blogs for background information.

If our officers are not getting exposed in the War College to the pholposphy and goals of what is driving the Islamists, and instead get defenses … not from “outside” speakers, but from policy advisors. The firing of Stephen Coughlin because of hus “running afoul” of another* Mulsim advisor is very troubling and throws more than a fleeting shadow over what is going on.

Tell us, are there any Israeli / Jewish advisors at the War College, or in the Pentagon? Any specifically Christian ones? What are the special credentials of these Muslims?

As an American citizen and a taxpayer I find this unbalanced and biased Muslim influence unacceptable.

Ah Sun Tzu. The most quoted military strategist in the Western World. And that is because most people don’t know anyone else to quote instead and hey it makes a great bumper sticker quote that even the dumbest person can remember.

As a graduate of CGSC (Command and General Staff Course) I can say that a lot of this stuff DOES get studied by many officers in ILE at least (ILE is what CGSC is now called). Lots of discussions, papers, debates and a load of first hand experiences. As alluded to above, the majority of these officers have been into combat, all are college educated with almost all holding Master’s Degrees. Some understanding of Islam is taught. But remember this is the doctorate level of the military. Just like doctors, soldiers specialize in key areas that they work in. For a Quartermaster, logistics is the have all end all. His doctorate needs to be in logistical planning or supervision, not an indepth understanding of Islam. Having some knowledge of it? Sure, and we get that. But we have to focus on a VERY big picture that many times doesn’t involve Islam.

Yes its the current fight, but should we forget Russia? Or North Korea? Or China? How about FARC in Columbia? How about our buddy Chavez? Islam has about bugger all to do with any of those situations. But we had better damn well have some people who understand them. So we can’t drop everything and focus excusively on just Islam. We have people who understand how Islam works and are getting more everyday. If you want more proof check out the reading section of a post Clothing and Sales and see just who much material is available for soldiers to read and how much encouragement they get to read it (its quite a bit, especially the combat arms folks). And yes, it does hit on the “mohammand” method of warfare.

The basic problem with Western thinkers is that we have forgotten how our philosophical understandings of human dignity, rights, and freedom are specifically Christian in origin. The pagan West — whether Greece, Rome, Gaul, or Britannia — did not hold these beliefs, and there is no reason to believe a post-Christian society will continue to hold them. We as a society are ashamed of Christianity; Western arts and letters ever since the mid-1800s have been consumed with rebellion and deconstruction of Christianity as a moral authority. There is almost no other subject in so-called “fine” art and literature anymore; representation and narrative are gone, replaced by brutishness, mockery, inversion, and “transgressive” deconstruction of the past.

It does not occur to our intellectual elite that, as good as science is, it can never produce an “ought” from an “is”. It does not occur to our intellectual elite that some other kind of moral authority, with different fundamental axioms, will sweep in and take over once Christianity has been completely overthrown. The call of the muezzin grows louder.

Gosh and golly, maybe we should redouble our efforts to engage in inter-faith dialouges with the local mosque. Let’s hire each and every muslim “civil rights” organization in the USA to teach our military, FBI, CIA, TSA etc. all about the misunderstood religion of peace. Let’s force the sheep dogs to undergo sensitivity training provided by the wolves.

Anyone recall the success of “outreach” and “sensitivity” programs with the American Nazi Party during the 1930′s and 1940′s?

We’re being lead by fools to our demise.

Want to learn about islam and the threat to our way of life? Hire a muslim apostate.

MG at #37 has it correct. I am a retired AF Lt Col. The level of PC in the military ranks is high because to call a “religion” something other than a religion is a career killer. All it takes is a disaffected employee in the ranks to file a complaint. The possibility of sexual harrassment, racial or religious intolerance complaints, among other things requires people in the workplace to restrain their what they say. This permeates everything in our current discourse. It is impossible to call the shots as you see them without offending someone.

“If our officers are not getting exposed in the War College to the pholposphy and goals of what is driving the Islamists, and instead get defenses” <—- Let me again point out that this is not true. It seems to be on its way to becoming an urban myth based on an antecdote from someone who spent two days at the War College a few years ago based on something that some unnamed person said to him at lunch.

Dr. Zuhur’s job at the Army War College was to research and publish on thinking in the Islamic world. The assertion that there is “unbalanced and biased Muslim influence” at the Army War College is not correct. In fact, Mr Couglin spoke here a few weeks ago.

Welcome to the Asylum of our Era. Notice how many of those interfering with a proper understanding of Islamic issues, are of Middle Eastern names. I’m sure this is just an accident.

Expect more of this infiltration due the amount of wealth given to Islam for oil during the past couple score years. We’re talking about trillions of our own dollars coming back to change us. Our government and noble classes are bought by this huge influence. Duh.

A highly successful, long-term, masterful, Muslim “influence operation” is well under way here in the U.S.

In the 1970s Edward Said (by the way, a good friend of Obama and Bill Ayers at Columbia) and his book “Orientalism,”–propelled and energized by the tidal wave of the Left’s Postmodernism and it’s political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity and moral equivalence that swept through U.S. academic institutions–an within a few short years destroyed our centuries old, traditional school of “Orientalists,” who took a very dim view, indeed, of Islam, its hostility to the West, and it’s ambitions. These were the learned and clear-sighted people our government and military used to turn to for information on Muhammad, Islam, Israel and the Middle East and, today, the accumulated wisdom of the hundreds of years of their investigations and observations lies forgotten, no longer consulted or even known of, gathering dust on library shelves.

Paralleling this development, starting in the mid-1970s, the Saudis and other Muslim countries quietly spent at least $200 million dollars that we know of to set up Middle East research centers, endow existing chairs and create new ones, support departments and programs, and to set up scholarships in Middle Eastern Studies at many dozens of America’s most prestigious and influential universities, to train new generations of “Middle East experts” who would be much more friendly to Islam and the Saudi/Wahabi line. In return for their money, Muslim governments hostile to the U.S. have acquired growing influence over the subjects and manners of study, over publication and curriculums, organizations, conferences, speaking engagements and honors, and thus, over promotion and tenure in Middle Eastern Studies. Increasingly, most U.S. “Middle East experts” now peddle a line on Muhammad, Islam, the Qur’an, the Middle East, terrorism, the Palestinians and Israel that is much closer to the Saudi/Wahabi line than it is to what the old Orientalists would have said. Those academics who aren’t heavily influenced by Muslim money are intimidated (for who knows when some furious Muslim—as has already happened in Europe and elsewhere–might take offense to their work and show up on their doorstep, pistol or knife in hand), and whole avenues of academic and archeological research into these now “touchy” Muslim subjects that used to be free and active are blocked–are career killers–and the few scholars around the world still investigating Muhammad and the history of the Qur’an and Islam, like “Christoph Luxenberg,” have to write under pseudonyms, and pay particular attention to their personal security.

The success of this influence operation has bled over into and is paralleled by a similar operation in American popular culture, where the MSM and popular writers have taken up views favorable to Muslims, and the Saudis and other Muslim governments have been very happy to promote the careers and books of very prolific and popular authors like Karen Johnson, one or more of whose works of propaganda about Islam and Muhammad, Christianity and the Crusades—exercises in fantasy, apologetics and alternate history–are likely to be found on the shelves in virtually any bookstore or library of any size in America.

This gradual Muslim infiltration, influence and subversion operation—the “boiling a frog” approach–directed at our academic intuitions, our MSM, popular knowledge and attitudes, our government and military, aimed at creating in the U.S. a Muslim-directed “tunnel vision,” at blinding and confusing us, and creating for us a world-view and perceptions favorable to Muslims, at dulling our senses and weakening our resolve and our responses to Muslim Jihad, is paralleled, it now appears from a sprinkling of recent incidents, by infiltration of Muslim “agents of influence”—peddling the same Muslim siren song–into our military and defense establishments.

“If our officers are not getting exposed in the War College to the pholposphy and goals of what is driving the Islamists” <– Again, I would point out this is not true. It is an urban myth that apparently arose from an antecdote from someone who spent a day or two at the College based on what someone told him at lunch.

“unbalanced and biased Muslim influence” <— This is certainly not true at the Army War College. Dr. Zuhur’s job is to research and write on beliefs and perspectives in the Islamic world. Other people present other positions. Mr. Coughlin, for instance, spoke at the War College a few weeks ago.

to Old Airman 2000, are you aware of the Gramscian formula of “patient gradualism”? What you has described is a part of on-going cultural war to weaken the US political-military capabilities to fight their enemies, either through indoctrination of young people to embrace/empathize with America’s enemies or a series of rule-changing methods in all levels to promote multiculturalism and diversity.

You cannot fight your enemy without offending your co-worker’s beliefs that are more aligned with your enemy than with America.

For current events re Islam’s progress against the west and for historical perspective, add two sites to your favorites: JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna.

I realize many of you already are familiar with these, but want to put the information out there frequently for those who are not.

What dynamic is going to overcome the PC/wilful ignorance on the part of those (ranging from bureaucracies to agencies to military) who are responsible for protecting and defending the Constitution and the nation????? Where’s the tipping point?

As a 20 yr veteran I have one question…WTF is this guy doing anywhere near this organization? For Gods sake, this is the ultimate fox in a henhouse. Political correctness will be the downfall of this nation, for a practicing Muslim must oppose western values and culture.

Old Airman 2000 writes, “The level of PC in the military ranks is high because to call a “religion” something other than a religion is a career killer.” It’s worse than that. There is a tendency to treat Islam as one of the world’s “great religions”, or as a religion like any other. But Islam is not “just” a religion, it is a totalitarian socio-political philosophy, a faith that mandates struggle against the non-believer and places “sharia” as the highest authority. The US would hardly open its doors to immigration by self-confessed communists or fascists, or those who would advocate the overthrow of the US. Yet it has no problem letting in fundamentalist Muslims who believe, as a matter of faith, that the US must be brought to Islam.

I would highly recommend the book Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer. This sounds like part of it. We have been penetrated by this enemy that seeks to destroy us and it appears that some of our finest institutions are allowing themselves to become willing victims. Unless this trend is reversed, the United States as we know it today will cease to exist. Our radical Islamic enemies could not make it any clearer when they publicly say that there goal is to destroy us and I can tell you that it is NOT just hyperbolic rhetoric. They mean it and they are in the process of carrying it out and they are being helped by the insipid political correctness that has infected the West. Here is a quote from his book: “Islamic groups will continue to push for international and domestic bans on “hate speech,” by which they mean, among other things, any HONEST discussion of the elements of Islam that justify violence and Islamic supremacism.” My suggestion to all military officers is to do what I have done – ENGAGE IN SELF-STUDY and KNOW YOUR ENEMY!! You don’t need a War College to do that and you may end up being our nation’s last hope as the stealth jihad continues.

So Mr. Metz, is the statement cited below untue? And if it’s not why are you covering for Zuhur? Even HRC – The AGW Fool – says she won’t negotiate with Hamas.

“Zuhur concludes that Hamas isn’t so bad after all, so we all just need to get along and embrace the terrorist group through negotiations — a view apparently endorsed by the Army War College when it published her defense of Hamas.”

“Nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of being hung in the morning!” Anon prisoner looking out his cell window at the scaffold being built in his honor.

Maybe what we need as a nation is this bunch of arrogant, irrational, elitist, smug, idiots (to be fair…on both the left and right extremes) to be exposed for the smugs @$X! they are! Honestly, if the level of real intelligence on the part of those in “leadership” is reflected in what we’re seeing happen in our country over the past 6 months, it will take a catastrophe to cause the real Americans to finally say “enough is enough…if you’re able, either get a job and make enough to feed yourself and live indoors, or starve…NO ONE gets promoted into any level of management without A RESUME like the rest of us have to put together to get promoted into a LOWER LEVEL JOB…and on illegal immigration and foreign policy?…lets do some business around the world and dominate if we can…but if you @@@##$$$ with us, we’ll make you a parking lot and not think twice about it.” Furthermore, all you liberals and other idiots who apparently have too much time and money on your hands, who think the rest of us ought to “be more patriotic and ‘contribute’ more in taxes”?… We ought to start with THEIR SAVINGS AND INVESTMENTS AND GIVE THOSE AWAY FIRST…don’t care to whom…whatever their favorite charity, but when they run out of money and need a job, LET THEM HAVE TO EARN THE DAMN JOB THE WAY THE REST OF US HAVE TO…BY PERFORMING. I personally don’t want to hear any more about hte “black” plight, the “poor me, I’m a woman and that means I can’t get promoted” plight, the “I’m depressed so I can’t work” plight, and all the other, ##@$@%%. GO TO WORK DAMMIT! You’d be surprised how theraputic that can be! However, if you find you DON’T LIKE IT, try paying your bills from nothing. Perhaps your perspective will change.

WORKING PEOPLE: AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO SAY THAT’S ENOUGH! Put these arrogant, lazy, do-nothing, “its all about how I feel” types to work and let the chips fall where they will. I have NO PROBLEM helping someone who truly can’t work…but I see men and women going to work, running businesses every day that have cancer, depression, and many other ailments. Do it anyway! We’re not going to carry your sorry behind!

AND IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER (Forrest Gump)…”That’s all I have to say about THAT”

We are doomed. From the highest levels of government, defense and academia, it has been deemed politically incorrect and verboten to defend our nation against Islamofascism. Europe has been lost. To even speak out against “Islamism” will get you investigated for racism and even jailed. In the US, we are on the same road. In the 50′s, it was “better dead than red,” in this new century, it is “better we cease to exist than be seen as racist”. We have no will to fight this war. Bush may have taken the war to the enemy, but he refused to win it, with PC rules of engagement more befitting the SF police force than a military. His legacy is now a politically correct “war” against an enemy that cannot be named. He paralyzed our offensive by, after 9/11, calling Islam a “religion of peace”, telling schoolkids to send $1.00 to Afghan children, and changed the name of the Afghan battle from Operation “Infinite Justice” to “Enduring Freedom” to avoid offending Muslims.

The next administration will continue and worsen this head in the sand approach.

The American people, with the attention span of a chihuahua on coke, could care less, for they view the Muslim jihadist as more of a victim than a stockbroker on the 101st floor of Tower 1 on 9/11.

The outcome of all this is a few mushroom clouds over our cities. Only then will we decide it is time to take off the PC straitjacket and fight, but then again, maybe we will surrender like the French in WWII, to prove we are not racists.

key graph:
“…his major source for the fact that there is an academic freedom problem at the Army War College is someone who was a guest speaker for a few days a couple of year ago. This fellow drew his conclusion from the comments of some unidentified people who came up to him during lunch.”

There is also discussion about how Tom Ricks is a master at taking statements out of context, conflating them with other “facts” and jumping to conclusions. Seems like some of that is taking place here as well.

“My suggestion to all military officers is to do what I have done – ENGAGE IN SELF-STUDY and KNOW YOUR ENEMY!! You don’t need a War College to do that and you may end up being our nation’s last hope as the stealth jihad continues.”
–
Fine, but how will that help them defend the nation from Islamists if the official government policy is the deluded “Islam is a reigion of peace”. when it is in fact the world’s most powerful political movement? The presence of Hamas apologist Zuhur at The War College is evidence of the vitality of this menace.

So Mr. Metz, is the statement cited below untue? And if it’s not why are you covering for Zuhur? Even HRC – The AGW Fool – says she won’t negotiate with Hamas.

“Zuhur concludes that Hamas isn’t so bad after all, so we all just need to get along and embrace the terrorist group through negotiations — a view apparently endorsed by the Army War College when it published her defense of Hamas.” <——- It includes a distortion and a falsehood.

First, the distortion. Dr. Zuhur’s argument is that Hamas is seen as legitimate by a very large proportion of the Palestinian people, so no solution that excludes it is sustainable. So the options are to exclude Hamas and live with perpetual conflict, or try and include it in a settlement. That seems to make sense to me.

Then the falsehood: it is NOT true that the Army War College “endorsed” Dr. Zuhur’s argument. As I pointed out earlier, p. ii of the monograph states, “The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the
Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.” But, of course, it wouldn’t have been as attention grabbing to accurately portray the study as the work of one individual as to suggest that it represents some sort of Army or Army War College position.

There are numberless CITIZENS who are educating themselves these days, but the people who are sitting at the levers of power are apparently either restricted by their own lack of interest or marching orders that prevent them from acting on what they know.

Please, let’s have some perspective. The Army was teaching US battlefield doctrine against motorized rifle regiments (i.e. standard Soviet combat units) as late as 1996, half a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union. When I challenged the teaching, I was told that most of our enemies were trained in Soviet tactics and used Soviet equipment. When I challenged that premise, asking the instructor to name ONE enemy we had faced since WWII that used both Soviet equipment and tactics, I was told to shut up. And at that time there was no political correctness pushing the Army to whitewash communist threats as there is today to whitewash islamic threats to the US.
There is sure to be years and years of denial in the US Army officer and NCO educational systems as to who the enemy is, how they think, and what we need to do to defeat them. Thank God for leaders like GEN Petraeus.

Steve Metz of the War College needs to get his facts straight. He keeps repeating that these allegations are from “someone who based it on something said to him by an unknown person”. Dr. Metz may not agree with the assessments by his critics, but that doesn’t give him license to intentionally misrepresent who is saying what. As Ricks makes clear this is Mark Perry’s own assessment based on an email exchange between Ricks and Perry. So concerned was Perry that he sent a letter to the Joint Chiefs chairman. This is all spelled out in the first two paragraphs of Ricks’ post.

Metz also invokes Stephen Coughlin’s recent appearance at the War College as proof that nothing is wrong at AWC. I will leave it to Coughlin to speak for himself on his recent appearance. But I would suggest that some of the same voices hectoring about academic freedom have been some of the those most anxious to crowd out anyone else with opinions contrary to their own.

In fact, in the post that initiated this whole discussion we find that it was none other than STEVE METZ who played a large role in the blackballing of Tom Ricks at AWC:

I would only add that many of the comments by current and retired officers here on this thread affirm the problem – there is no attempt at our military or intelligence schools to educate military professionals in Islamic war history, biography, theory and practice. Admittedly, many of our military leaders are good students and are seeking out and finding materials on their own. But during the cold war, our military leaders didn’t have to scrap and search for materials on Marxism or Soviet war doctrine. That is the very point that Mark Perry is making.

It’s always best to see if you take your hands off your eyes and fingers out of your ears. Those who does not know their enemy and how they think, knows nothing. Fighting an enemy you know nothing about, is like the blind leading the blind. If the Army War College refuses to examine Islamic doctrine and it’s application to war, then our future leaders are being blindfolded before they have even graduated. Every option must be examined for future leaders who wishes to command. The safety of the troops depends on their leaders knowing the enemy and what they’re capable of. It’s not wise to say, we will only fight the enemy based on his actions and not his motives.

I’ve tried being subtle, but that ain’t working, so I’ll be blunt: Mr. Parry doesn’t know what is or is not read at the Army War College. There are several hundred members of the faculty here, so it wouldn’t be hard to fact check Mr. Parry’s contention. But neither Mr. Rick nor you elected to do that. Hence Mr. Parry’s contention is now becoming urban myth.

Second, as I’ve written elsewhere, the claim that I “blackballed” Tom Ricks is, depending on how nicely you want to put it, a distortion or outright BS. The facts are that I and several of my colleagues felt that Mr. Ricks had misportrayed our positions after interviewing us. I wrote an email to my immediate colleagues advising them to be wary of that. This wasn’t sent to anyone in a position of authority at the War College. No one in a position of authority instructed any faculty members to avoid Tom Ricks. I did not have the authority to instruct any faculty member to avoid him. So the use of the word “blackballing” is deliberate, propgandistic distortion.

Steve Metz says: “No one in a position of authority instructed any faculty members to avoid Tom Ricks.” Except when reading Ricks’ post (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/14971) we discover that what Metz told his colleagues that “we all need to avoid Tom like the plague”. Based on Metz’s response in the comments to that post, that much doesn’t seem to be in dispute.

When considering that Metz is the CHAIRMAN of his department at the War College, a definite position of authority; and it was his “immediate colleagues”, which presumably included his subordinates, that he was telling to avoid Ricks; that sure sounds a lot like someone in a position of authority instructing faculty members to avoid Tom Ricks. And telling them to avoid him “like the plague” sure sounds like blackballing. Certainly not a warm invitation to dialogue.

As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.

Kill as many of the enemy as you can (never mind if the fashion of killing is egregious and/or might violate some silly “conventions” the infidels subscribe to) grab their women & loot, divvy it up.

(caveat, today’s Islamists purporting to be following the advice of The Prophet in executing (no pun intended) violent jihad, are likely not too interested in the western females left over when the males have been slaughtered)

(gee, was that too easy ?)

It was Steven Pellitiere of the war college who offered the novel explanation of Saddam’s

The Cold War has been won, is safely behind us, and our Muslim enemies and their partisans and allies have been only too willing to encourage us to think that we are owed a well-deserved holiday and/or a peaceful retirement from History, that we have entered a more peaceful, enlightened and “nuanced” era-—a less hard-edged world of a million acceptable shades of gray—-a world requiring less alertness, less struggle, less discipline and less sacrifice than did the world of the last 60 years.

Our Muslim enemies have been only too glad to encourage and enable our all too human turning away from today’s exceedingly dangerous and ugly reality, to encourage our rejection of the chilling prospect of more decades worth of arduous struggle and sacrifice; a deadly enemy only too glad to fabricate and substitute, in its unpalatable place, a much less arduous reality, one designed to flatter our new found “sophistication,” “enlightenment,” “civility” and “non-judgmental,”"multicultural,” “non-discriminatory” mind-set, a false reality designed to encourage and foster our confusion, to sap our will, and to set us firmly on the downward path towards our diminishment and defeat.

On this and many other blogs around the Web, the operative assumption of very many of the people who comment is that we as a nation are so in denial, so imprisoned, blinded and constrained by political correctness, so bemused, turned around, ignorant, misinformed and baffled about Islam and the scope, nature, extent and aims of the world-wide Muslim Jihad against us and all unbelievers, that it will take the shock a major Muslim terrorist attack against our homeland, and many tens of thousands of U.S. dead and wounded, to have any chance at all of breaking the spell, clearing our heads, and restoring and rousing our will.

Diggs – When I challenged that premise, asking the instructor to name ONE enemy we had faced since WWII that used both Soviet equipment and tactics, I was told to shut up.

Then I am embarassed for both you and your instructor not being aware of the history:

Straight Soviet equipment and tactics (meaning doctrine) –
Egyptian army in 1967, Syrian military 67, 73. Soviets in Afghanistan, set up against the massed nations of NATO 1948-1989. Cubans and locals in Grenada. Iraq in the Gulf War, conventional military response in 2003. Both the Indians and Chinese in their border clashes.

Limited use of Soviet equipment and tactics – but with a twist like mass swarming attack (Chinese in Korea) or backing with guerilla irregulars (Vietnam).
Korea. Defeat of French at DienbienPhu with classic Soviet artillery doctrine. NVA battles with ARVN. Chinese defeat of Kuomingtang forces and Vietnam. Strategy of proxy Cuban forces in Africa. Iraq-Iran War.

The likelihood we would face Soviet or post-Soviet equipment plus tactics in major war in the future vs. the small insurgency type war Petreaus faced – that will be best understood as not the centrality of US deterrance but a low casualty boutique area of capacity and expertise America’s main forces lacked?

Very high.

Worth studying and knowing such capacities and equipment as some of our main rivals and possible allies like Russia, China, Venezuela, “the New Iraq”, Vietnam, NORKs – all use them?

Absolutely worth studying and knowing.

Along with at least a cadre in the military knowing the sort of low casualty, low tech Muslim insurgency warfare you fixate on. Even as a small cadre within a US military that must also face the challenges of the larger conventional and nuclear threats out there, and new naval, space, C-3, cyberwar, political challenges arising.

Organizing a military around only the low-tech, low casualty Muslim insurgent threat and ignoring larger national military threats would be like cops deciding after a few difficult family disputes they dealt with unprepared, that all the rest of their police work could be neglected so all their force could become domestic dispute intervention experts.

“First, the distortion. Dr. Zuhur’s argument is that Hamas is seen as legitimate by a very large proportion of the Palestinian people, so no solution that excludes it is sustainable. So the options are to exclude Hamas and live with perpetual conflict, or try and include it in a settlement. That seems to make sense to me. ”

Well, no. It is sort of granting the opponent’s thesis. You seem to be skipping two or three alternatives (which you may not find desirable):

1) Destroy HAMAS
2) Discredit and delegitimize HAMAS so the Pals reject them
3) Impose enough Schrecklichkeit upon the Pals so they forget who it is they think is legitimate and start caring more about who you think is legitimate.

Imagine the Romans, or the Ottoman Empire, giving a damn what their subject peoples thought about anything. It was not important for the Empire to know/care what their subjects thought; it was very important for their subjects to know/care about the Imperial will.

What would be really helpful would be the ability to control the media narrative. I don’t believe the Pals, the AQ/Taliban base, or the Ummah as a whole, are as tough or brave or resillient as the Japanese during WWII. The Japanese were beaten by the infliction of sufficient casualties and other misery plus the inevitable prospect of much more such misery.

Actually they submitted with fewer casualties than did Nazi Germany – 10.38% vs. 3.78% if Wiki may be accepted as a source for purposes of this discussion.

For argument’s sake, let me kill 150 million of them and see if the rest stop worrying about what Allah thinks and start worrying about what I think. Or if it just makes them REALLY mad and more dangerous than ever.

Given a sufficient sense of their own mortality, forces in the Islamic world will do our work for us. You really think these tribesmen dancing around the Durand Line are willing to die to the last man, woman and child for OBL? No, IMHO they think they can handle the threat as they always have. Prove them wrong and see how quick they give up bin Laden.

Now all this may be too evil for some delicate ears to hear. (In which case, the terrorists have already won?) I fully accept that this will all be horrible and that other methods should be sought – and I salute President Bush for trying so hard to find other ways – but when the strategy of our enemies, such as HAMAS, amounts to “You haven’t got the guts to hit us hard enough to stop us because we don’t armor ourselves in steel, ceramics and DU; we armor ourselves in our own flesh and blood, your squeamishness/decency, and media hysterics,” well, it’s never wise to ignore the enemy’s strategy, is it?

Von Rundstadt once said “US Army Officers have not studied, and do not understand their doctrine.”

This characteristic of the US Army makes the Army fairly impervious to top down bad ideas. The Army officers soon learn to say what you have to say in school to get past, but any relationship to reality is purely due to staff negligence.

I think the same applies to institutions and organizations in general.

Playing the game, whatever is the current game within the organization itself, infighting and turf wars can come to take precedence over the mission & the reason the organization was created in the first place.

Which brings us back to infighting between intelligence agencies prior to 911 and “higher ups” focused on interagency turf wars.

…but when the strategy of our enemies, such as HAMAS, amounts to “You haven’t got the guts to hit us hard enough to stop us because we don’t armor ourselves in steel, ceramics and DU; we armor ourselves in our own flesh and blood, your squeamishness/decency, and media hysterics,” well, it’s never wise to ignore the enemy’s strategy, is it?

The “Long March Through the Insitutions” that began in 1968 has made its way now to the War College. It was easy to march through the mush and bilge of the schools and Hollywood, but the War College has taken a lot of time and a lot of complicity by a whole phalanx of useful idiots.
Someone here said a civil war must now precede any other. I am afraid he might be right.
Requiescat in pacem, USA.

“First, the distortion. Dr. Zuhur’s argument is that Hamas is seen as legitimate by a very large proportion of the Palestinian people, so no solution that excludes it is sustainable. So the options are to exclude Hamas and live with perpetual conflict, or try and include it in a settlement. That seems to make sense to me.” Steve Metz

—

Both statements are daft. Hamas does not recognize the right of Israel to exist so no solution with the Palestinians is sustainable so long as they are represented by Hamas. There is a third option and it is to destroy Hamas or at least weaken it to such an extent that the Palestiians decide they would prefer to live in peace with Israel. Negotiating with Hamas will only strentghten its hand and prolong the war.

“First, the distortion. Dr. Zuhur’s argument is that Hamas is seen as legitimate by a very large proportion of the Palestinian people, so no solution that excludes it is sustainable. So the options are to exclude Hamas and live with perpetual conflict, or try and include it in a settlement. That seems to make sense to me.”

If the Hamas charter states that its goal is the destruction of the Jewish State, how exactly do you negotiate with that? Anything that falls short of their goal will only garner a hudna while Hamas and the other groups re-arm and lick their wounds for the next round of the jihad. And the only way you get to hudna with these savages is to use overwhelming force to the point that they call for a truce and negotiations. It’s all to buy time.

Again, if you and your fellow officers would just undertake the admittedly tedious task of reading the Qur’an, some English translations of the most authoritative ahadith (Bukhari and Muslim)and any thorough and critical examination of the life, deeds, and career of Muhammad – you would understand the depth of our concerns here.

Islam is far more dangerous than Communism. Why? Because it is a complete totalitarian cult that includes a “spiritual” component. To die fighting the kafir during the jihad brings instant access to Allah’s(really, Satan’s)”paradise.” For the Communists, there is nothing after death. Finis. The end. Why do you think that the Communist forces need political officers in every unit and on every ship or boat? To make sure that their military will do what is necessary. Very often it took the pistols and machine guns of the political officers at the backs of the comrades to send them against their enemies.

This enemy needs no such threats. They believe deeply in the reward and are willing to die. How do you combat that?

As the Marxists have been forming, for several decades now, an evolving alliance of convenience with the Muslims in their joint war against the West, they have been deluding themselves in thinking that, in the end, their metaphysical materialism will win out over the Muslims. They really think that they are using the Muslims as their proxies and shock troops against capitalism and Western Civilization. But the Muslims know this is what is going on, and they plan, in the end, as they use these Western tools, to wipe them out. The Left will not even be allowed the Dhimma. Islam hates the pysicalist reductionism and hedonism of the socialists. Even though both are totalitarians to the core, in the end one or the other must die. And I don’t think the Marxists are going to win that one.

If one studies the history of the 1,400 years of jihad conquest, one is struck by how the same patterns of infiltration and enervation of the enemy are happening today. Believe me, folks, these people know how to do it.

Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, as a possible front, ownes the majority stock in Citigroup. He also made large investments in AOL, Apple Inc., Worldcom, Motorola, News Corporation Ltd and other technology and media companies. Islamic Professors are hired in our universities. They are taking us over from within. Now our military, the one place I thought would be safe. I wonder if the make burqas in pink…I love that color.

I find it very disturbing that there are (apparently) credible postings on both sides of this divide: “The War College is looking the other way” and “Idiot! Of course the War College is teaching on this!”

We have gotten to where:

1. We do not trust our public/governmental/ military agencies.
2. We do not believe statements made (on either side) because we have learned well in the last 15 years that politics (foreign and domestic) are no longer what they appear to be.
3. We know for a fact that our agencies and defenses ARE compromised: we just don’t know for sure WHERE and to what degree.
4. We basically are not going to believe anything anyone tells us, even it is “what we want to hear”.
5. And then we have those sterling patriots posting on this thread who plainly say they couldn’t care less about this nation. (Obviously Bambi supporters, since that is one of his main policies.)

Whatever Joe MCcarthy’s merits as a human being and the merits of his tactics in exposing “Communist Conspiracies” in the U.S. Government, the hard fact was that there were indeed Communist conspiracies in the U.S. Government.

I really would rather not have another McCarthy-type era exposing the insidious influence of Islamists within the federal government, but that’s what it may take to root out virtual saboteurs.

No, I’m not holding my breath in the current political climate. You may laugh out loud now.

Europe is for most purposes already in the can from what I can gather on the subject.

The U.S. is next.

With the incoming administration there is no way we can fight off the attack. Why do you think the rest of the world basically supported Obama?
Now that this has come to pass there will be no stopping the advancement of Islam. The Islamist now know they will have a much easier ride for at least the next 4 years. Does anyone really think the Obama administration will do much other than TALK…
That is exactly what the Islamist are counting on,
While the west TALKS and postures and takes comfort in being “PC” the Islamist are moving, building, expanding, fortifying their positions.
Fundamental Tactics,
They are on a War footing and the west is worried about what size their next flat panel T.V is going to be.
Face the facts, The Political class in the U.S. is brain dead. The citizenship for the most part is too decadent to see the tsunami coming square on.
Attention All Hands:
Stand by for Heavy Rolls.

This is a great discussion, but ultimately worthless. We are trying to convince ourselves that we, as a military, need to understand the enemy. This is MOTO. We are missing the most important piece-the will of the American people. The reason why we have not, nor will win the war against Islamo fascism is because the American people have no wish to do so. This in reality is a political problem and the military is just one of many tools to be used to defeat the enemy. It is this lack of defining the enemy, his ideology and overarching goals that at this point has us almost defenseless. This is a war of ideas and we have our intellectual arms tied behind our backs. Only until the Commander-In-Chief and the leadership of this nation develop the people’s will appropriately do we have a chance at survival.

I believe the truth always wins out. It just takes time. In our case, the question is “How much time do we have?” So many excellent authors like Robert Spencer are doing superb, yeoman work to educate the public about Islam. There is much more awareness about Islam than there was ten years or twenty years ago. Yes, the majority of Americans are still in the dark about this. But this will gradually change in the years ahead.

What IS going to happen is that there will be a great divide between the People, who have been steadily accumulating the truth about Islam, and the elites in government, media, and academia, who are moving in the opposite direction and are increasingly bought off by Muslim money. This condition is potentially explosive, particularly when jihad becomes more bold in its moves.

This is not the only issue where I sense a growing, fierce divide in the country between the elites and their allies among the people, on the one side, and the people who care for the traditions and the Constitution on the other side. I’m 53 years old and I’ve seen a lot going on in the nation since I was a young adolescent while the Vietnam War was going on. This nation, I think, is becoming increasingly divided and I see the very real possibility of civil war in our future. I used to be on the Left, so I know THAT side very well. I know how deeply embedded in our institutions these people are and how effective their subversion of our society has become. Since breaking with the Left I have become very hardened against them, because of the harm I see them doing to our young people and our nation. Their alliance with Islam is repugnant. I’m not the only citizen who thinks these things and sees this coming domestic war as a bleak possibility. We are in the early stages of the conflict. If we cannot resolve this thing rationally and within the framework of our political system and Constitution, then the nation will be ripped apart in civil war. And that is my warning to the elites of this nation at this juncture: your loyalties should be to the American people, not some ideal of transnational socialism and internationalism.

to MG #102: This is a war of ideas and we have our intellectual arms tied behind our backs. Only until the Commander-In-Chief and the leadership of this nation develop the people’s will appropriately do we have a chance at survival.

I don’t have much hope and confidence from our newly elected Commander-in-Chief when it comes to war against Islamic terrorism or negotiating with America’s worst enemies.

The government has not been infiltrated by Islamists, but by a rival evil. Globalists want to undermine nation-states, something that can’t be done in times of patriotism, prosperity and stability. They need chaos and fear, and the Jihadists will give it to them. You can’t propose a solution without first having a problem.

I’m on my third tour in Afghanistan and study the insurgency here daily. The flaw in the author’s thesis is the assumption that al Qaeda, the Taliban, et al have a master strategy. They don’t. They aren’t even a coherent organization. These organizations are a hodgepodge of small groups, doing whatever they want. One cannot create a strategy to combat intellectual chaos. The only ones who think the Taliban are geniuses are the journalists, few of which possess the intellect to report factually on the conflict here. As far as the war effort goes, as an old Army colleague paraphrasing Napoleon told me, “It’s not the best armies that win wars, it’s the ones the make the fewest mistakes.”

Great point by Raymond Millen but he is missing the point. The “threat” in Afghanistan is comprised of various groups who may or may not call themselves Taliban and may or may not be motivated by Islamic passions. That fact would be to our advantage if our military leaders could capitalize on it. They cannot because they restrict themselves to their large FOB’s where they infrequently sortie out in their large armored vehicles to show the flag and accomplish nothing. Or they confine their infantry to small FOB’s up in the Kunar Province where everyday they exchange fire with the local villagers in a Hatfield – Mc Coy style more reminiscent of Saturday morning cartoons than warfare.

Every FOB has a commander and every commander is evaluated by what us Marines call a fitness report (fitrep) at the end of his tour. That report will probably be the only combat command fitrep an officer receives in 30 years of service and it is the most important fitrep of his career. What are they evaluated on? What happens inside their base – just like back in America. There is a ton of things which must be done correctly in order to manage thousands of people on a base and that work load is well inside the comfort zone of you average Colonel. What is not inside the comfort zone of your average Colonel is conducting competent operations in Afghanistan so they default to World War II tactics. This means all interactions with the local people we are supposed to provide a secure environment for is done in body armor and at the point of a gun. That is because every time you leave the wire you are in a “combat environment” and therefore need all your protective gear on, the guns loaded, and fingers on the trigger.

The Afghans, lacking our sophisticated, nuanced seeking way of interpreting peoples actions consider this posture to be cowardly. They think we are not being serious when we say we are here to help because they don’t see us helping. They just see us driving around in big armored vehicles which tear down their electrical wires every time they drive down a village street (MRAPS are really tall but not the average village electrical grid.) The commanders work exclusively through Afghan government officials which is stupidity in action because the Afghan government is major part of the problem. It is a Kleptocracy plain and simple thus confining all you interactions to government representatives is similar to turning an abused teen age boy over to NAMBLA for counseling. It doesn’t make sense, it cannot be justified, and it is indicative of failure at the highest levels of military command.

We are getting our butts kicked in Afghanistan not because the Taliban are outfighting us but because they are out governing us and our allies which is why they control so much of the country now. It is great to see guys like Raymond doing their third tour here but I have been here five years and I see our military making the same mistakes over and over again – they do not know anything (collectively) they have not learned anything (collectively) and they are not accomplishing anything (unless you call the continued loss of important Provinces to Taliban affiliates progress.) The military has an excellent counterinsurgency doctrine which specifically warns against fighting a counterinsurgency using big bases with troops who are isolated and removed from the civilian population. We need leaders who are confident enough to use that doctrine. Where are they?

It’s not pleasant to suggest that some at the war college may be swimming in the cesspool of political correctness.

Or, worse.

I don’t think Hamas wants co-existence with Israel on any level, since the organization’s inspiring principle is driving the Jews from the geographical region known as Israel, which the Hamas Charter clearly claims as part of Palestine.

Since the (larger) terrorist entity (or multifarious and scattered entities) has expressed over and over its desire to kill or enslave we infidels & unbelievers (and has been causing havoc for some time all over the planet) I don’t have any questions as to their agendas.

The ideas are being propagated daily in radical mosques everywhere.

I think Sun Tzu (and Winston Churchill) would be scratching their heads at all the endless debate.

The divide between mainstream academia and the US military must be reversed.

The US Naval Academy was founded by the action of George Bancroft, the most eminent American historian of his day (and still a contender), then on leave of absence from Harvard University, in service as Secretary of the Navy.

He established a first-rate academic institution dedicated to national service.

That is a standard to which the military academies should continue to aspire.

The “endless debate” is a function of the absurd stubbornness of the people we call “the elites” who drive policy and dictate our lives. These people are, to varying degrees, influenced by modes of thought which are best described as civilizational suicide. Even the ones who would never subscribe to cultural Marxism’s many strategies for enervating and destroying our civilization, have been in subtle ways influenced by it. If you graduated from a university during the past forty years, it is highly likely you’ve been exposed to it. I know I was, and in fact signed on to willingly be an academic advocate for exploring and “improving” Marxist thought. But, having come out the other end of that miasma, I can see many ways in which people are influenced by it and are quite unaware of it. Political correctness and multi-culturalism are but some of the more popularly recognized symptoms.

Tim san,

Very informative post yours was. I was not aware of how utterly retarded the entire approach in Afghanistan is. Do you think that Gen. Petraeus is aware of the situation and will address the problem, now that he is put in overall command of the war in all of its theaters of operation? I wonder if he will remain now that Obama is ascending the throne for The Messiah.

I believe this is the same crowd that complained, in quite histrionic tones, of Islamic infiltration when UNC-Chapel Hill offered a course to undergraduates on The Qur’an.

So now, apparently, it’s a matter of the Muslim/Leftist/Liberal/PCers denying military students the right to studying those things.

It’s clear none of you read the Hamas article, since all that has been written in the comments section boils down to some abstract nonsense about “civilizational threats” and such.

Sherifa Zuhur was published multiple times in a peer-reviewed military journal. I don’t know. I might tend to think she might be worth listening to. But maybe that’s just because I don’t fully grasp the conspiracy that lies before us or whatever.

Very interesting thread – I’m amazed at how it has developed. I’ll go back, however, to my previous comment and expand regarding the premise of the article. As a previous poster said, the military personnel in those classes are Lt Cols or Cols – they are in their mid-late 30′s to 40′s or 50′s – they are adults who have had 18+ years experience either in the active or reserve military – they’ve been around the block. This ‘War College’ is either their 3rd or 4th exposure to an expanding ‘regimen’ of professional military education. I’m willing to bet most of them realize they are being exposed to many different viewpoints so that they can be ‘well-rounded.’

For me, one of the requirements of being an officer is seeking out as much information as possible so that while in command or supporting command, the correct or best decisions at any point can be made. That means hearing and/or understanding as many sides of the issue/decision at hand.

From a personal experience, I was exposed to a seminar in DC where many different professors of many different ilks presented their views to a vast audience of Reserve, combined Lt Cols and Cols. Each professor had their ‘viewpoint’ and as my father and history teacher used to say, “make their wheel squeak louder to get the grease.” Some I agreed with, some made me mad, however at the end, I sure had been exposed to many different perspectives. I left that experience much wiser about many things. The best comment made to me, though, by a colleague, was that the presenters were trying to get a reaction out of me, to understand that and not let myself just react, but to think about my possible actions and make a choice.

My impression of this original article was that the author believed a ‘one-sided’ perspective was being presented at the the Army War College without the balancing counterpoint. My hope is that if that is true, the students know that and are working to make themselves more informed, on their own, if necessary. They have been designated as the future leaders of the Army by being selected to go in-residence, and know they will be challenged later on.

Cedarford, you SHOULD be embarrassed, but not for me.
We never fought the Egyptian Army in 1967. Nor the Syrian army in ’67 or ’73. Nor the Soviets in Afghanistan, except as a small CIA operation. Nor the Cubans, again as a small CIA operation. The locals in Grenada used a few pieces of Soviet equipment, but never came close to using MRR tactics or doctrine. The Iraqi units in Desert Storm did use Soviet equipment, but not the tactics or doctrine. They set up whole regiments of tanks in hull-down dug-in positions, the antithesis of Soviet doctrine. They employed no air defense, no combined arms, no nothing that was Soviet doctrine at the time. They simply used, and used badly, Soviet equipment. If you think that the Iraqis used Soviet doctrine in either war, you don’t understand Soviet doctrine for either the offense or the defense.
And I wasn’t aware of any wars we fought with the Indians or Chinese.
As for Viet Nam, you have to be kidding. The VC and even the NVA used guerrilla tactics for all but the last few months of that war, long after our combat units had been withdrawn. So once again, I fail to see where we fought against an enemy using Soviet equipment and tactics.
And you still say that the likelihood of facing a Soviet MRR style fight is very high?
The only thing very high here is you. Yes, you should be embarrassed…at your lack of historical military knowledge. The only person who could be that lacking in military knowledge is an instructor in one of the Army professional development schools. So which one is it?

Since the beginnings of Islam in the 7th century A.D., the forces of Islam have often been outnumbered, yet still, Islam has often triumphed through its adept use of terror and deception.

The forces of Islam and it’s Jihad cannot defeat us militarily, but they can defeat us if they confuse us sufficiently–as to who they are, how widespread and where they are, what they believe, what their methods are, and what their ultimate goal is; if they terrify us and sap our will, and if we are unsure of ourselves and reluctant to defend our home turf, so that we do not effectively use the military power that we have, or are afraid to use our military power at all.

It was, after all, Muhammad himself who commanded his followers—the first Muslims—to spread terror among his enemies–the “unbelievers”–and who pointed out that “war is deceit”.

Recently, in summing up the essence of the Muslim way of war, Pakistani General S. K. Malik wrote in his seminal 1979 book, “The Quranic Concept of War,” that the center of gravity in war is the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” (See a review of this book’s view of war in PARAMETERS at: http://tinyurl.com/6eaj9l), and he goes on to say that Jihadis should “sow fear not feel fear.”

The main points of Islam’s attack against us are our hearts, our souls, our spirits and our Faith—Islam, Muslims and their supporters, helpers and partisans, aim to confuse us, to make us doubt and lose heart, to make us feel fear–and if we cannot fortify these points of attack, and regain the “civilizational confidence” to consider ourselves and our civilization worthy of defense, and then defend ourselves and our civilization with all our means and might, then Muslims and Islam will have won the key intellectual, psychological and spiritual battles; and lacking a full, correct vision and assessment of Islam, and lacking the will to use our might against it, it matters nothing that we have vastly superior military power,and we will be defeated.

Tim san: Forgive me for asking but isn’t that what our military is supposed to do? Drive around in big armored vehicles, and with weapons on the ready? I also have seen our military helping to get schools, government buildings, towns etc. up and running. They’re handing out school books, supplies and on and on. You remind me of those retired military personnel who on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc. went on and on about how military was stretched beyond their capabilities, losing, and on the way to being a second rate military force. I say to you…..NUTS

I think we Americans are often outsmarted by Taliban and other groups, people who know the subtleties of the cultures in which they’re operating. They want Afghanistan and even moreso, Pakistan, where incursions into cities are more and more extensive. Islamic extremists want north Africa, and are having particular success right now, it seems, in Somalia. They want Mindanao, Malaysia, Thailand…Australia, Canada, Europe, the US…(they did, more or less, ultimately get their butts kicked out of the land between two rivers/Iraq, but I have no doubt they’ll be back, trying again, since this land, especially, is important to the Ummah)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we might be expending our energies on debates about how to negotiate with Hamas or the 200+ guys still in Guantanamo. I’m sure the Islamist gets a big kick out of it when the infidel wrings his hands over waterboarding the guy who beheaded Daniel Pearl, who is described as the “mastermind” of 911 and who, last month, himself requested martyrdom at the hands of the infidel, KSM.

As we all know by now (or think we know) when we have someone like bin laden (pre 911) in our sights and the highest level of the American bureaucracy says “let him be”, we open up endless cans of worms for ourselves. (Bill Clinton was, reportedly, afraid he didn’t have enough evidence to convict him if we captured him)

It must be extremely frustrating for some in our intelligence agencies and military to be under the thumb of politicians who are mainly concerned with covering their own personal backsides, who are responsive to PC whining and who, often, don’t even really “get” this confrontation between worldviews going on at present. (some of those politicians don’t know Sunni from Shi’ite)

(our current President Elect, one week after 911, made remarks about a lack of “empathy” on behalf of those pathologically dedicated to exterminating us. And how we have to work at remedying that by helping out the world’s children. (I desperately hope he’s more realistic than those comments 7 years ago)

We’re held back by our institutional protocols and bureaucracies and such high falutin’ (and, ultimately, meaningless) cliches as “Americans don’t torture”. And, as noted above, our endless talking.

Right. “Terror”, ultimately, is instilling doubt and instability. That’s what al Zarqawi’s agenda was all about in Iraq, besides slaughtering unworthy shi’ites. That’s what is intended by Hamas & Hezbollah rocket & mortar attacks into Israel, from the west & from the north.

Any missive from bin Laden or his surrogates over the past decade or so reflects another major prong of the agenda, economic destabilization.

That seems to be working, our own greedy & corrupt in “the west” are rapidly destabilizing ourselves.

When you have some politically correct types in this country celebrating (just this week) some American bank that is doing well saying that this bank is using Shari’a principles of lending (“fees” for a loan as opposed to charging interest, gee, it’s really some dumb technicality), well, it’s all enough to make you run shrieking for the nearest exit.

The reason for the omissions and gaps is quite simple, and quite disgusting: it is immediately evident to anyone who so much as glances at the material available on radical Islam that any use of it leads directly and inexorably to some VERY non-PC conclusions, using a great deal of verboten terminology. Since the career penalties are so high in the College and military for such infractions, an iron-clad tacit agreement arises amongst those responsible for curriculum and strategic planning never to force each other into such suicidal windmill-jousting.

So everyone can happily share in a massive mutual pretense to be doing their jobs and fulfilling their responsibilities, despite the obvious piles of elephant dung in the living, conference, and class-rooms that must be steered and tacked around.

LynnS (#117), counterinsurgency (a.k.a. COIN) depends upon face-to-face interaction with the locals in order to build confidence and get them to start helping themselves by helping us. Driving around in tanks doesn’t count; an always-fully-armored force in their midst creates a posture of fear and distrust on their part, and evidences the same on our part. Counterinsurgency doctrine (as Gen. Petraeus wrote about, and later implemented in the “surge”) condemns this display of no-confidence. If we are not a visibly confident occupying force, the local institutions naturally fear and expect the return of the insurgency, along with reprisals against those who cooperated. So they don’t cooperate. COIN doesn’t mean that we don’t ever shoot, it just means that we don’t go in with a hair-trigger assumption that a firefight is about to occur any moment.

Wolla Dalbo (#116) and TANSTAAFL (#118), spot-on. Our lack of faith is the reason for our inability to display civilizational confidence, and it is the reason we are outsmarted. The culture war in the West is more important than the terror war: so long as Western civilization is losing the culture war at home, it is crippled in fighting the terror war. We have become essentially inward-looking, molding our global strategies around domestic cultural disputes. It is not enough to have ideals; we must know why to believe in them, or else we will constantly be whipsawed by internal politics.

Wrong. The military can and is affected by relentless propaganda. I am amazed at how much resources and lip service the U.S. Navy still gives the Diversity crap, 15+ years after it became trendy. There has never been an ounce of proof that it contributes to military effectiveness. In fact, I’m sure the opposite could be proved but no one will do it for fear of having their career destroyed by the gods of political correctness.

Since it appears that quite a few books are missing from the Army War College bibliography on Muhammad and Islam, I offer the following selected titles and sources:

Andrew G. Bostom, ed. “The Legacy of Jihad”–A comprehensive look at the history of Muslim warfare and aggression against non-believers, taken mostly from Muslim accounts themselves.

Any of Robert Spencer’s books–”The Truth About Muhammad,” “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades,” “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance,” etc.

The Saudi printed and distributed translation of the Qur’an titled “The Noble Qur’an” by Hilali and Khan in one volume; a small hardback also containing summaries of the views of Al-Tibari, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathur and comments by Al-Bukhari on almost every verse of the Qur’an. What American Muslims are being taught from and reading, and not one of the softer versions apologists like to quote.

The Center for the Study of Political Islam (http://www.cspipublishing.com/)has made reading and understanding the Qur’an, the Hadiths and Sira much easier because it has published an inexpensive paperback set of the core documents of Islam—the Qur’an,and the two other documents that supply the context and background one needs to make much of the Qur’an intelligible–the principle Hadiths (the Words and Deeds of the Prophet and His Companions) and the Sira (Ibn Ishaq’s Biography of the Prophet). Moreover, the scholars at CSPI have rearranged and cross-referenced these fundamental texts to make them more intelligible and also translated them into very easily understood newspaper level English. Citations are included to the original texts Muslims use so that readers can check to see that the CSPI translations do not omit or distort the original texts. (You can find even cheaper copies of these texts on Amazon).

Al Misri’s “Umdat al-Salik” translated as “Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law” written in the 14th century but in 1991 declared by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” in today’s world. Why, because it tells you what the mainstream Muslim authorities tell the 90% of Muslims who are Sunni what they should do, how they should behave, in all sorts of situations they may encounter in their lives. How should a Muslim behave if he is questioned by an Infidel, say in Iraq, about the whereabouts of a fellow Muslim or the weapons he might have hidden in that Muslim’s house? al-Misri tells you what a good Muslim should do. Hint, as a good Muslim you ain’t telling the Infidel dog anything that would harm a fellow Muslim or Islam.

A. Guillaume, transl. “The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasul Allah”” (The earliest, most accepted and revered biography of Muhammad, but at 800 close set pages, dense and heavy going–see the CSPI translation above)

Mary Habeck, “Knowing the Enemy” (Short but informative analysis of fundamentalist ideology with quotations from the major Muslim ideologues whose ideas fuel terrorism–Wahab, al-Banna and Qutb.)

Paul Fregosi, “Jihad in the West; Muslim Conquests From the 7th to the 21st century”

Raphael Patai’s “The Arab Mind,” rev. ed., a seminal book from the 1980s that discusses, among many other interesting things, the Arab child raising practices that likely contribute to the formation of Jihadis.

Serge Trifkovic’s “The Sword of the Prophet,” and “Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terror May Yet Be Won, In Spite of Ourselves”

Ibn Warraq, “Why I am No A Muslim”

MEMRI.org’s website. Why? Because MEMRI collects, presents, translates and analyzes a wide variety of material from the media in the Muslim world–sermons from major Mosques, TV shows, government statements, speeches, reports. People in the West have preconceived notions and assumptions about how people behave based on their experiences in western democratic societies. Thus, based on our experiences at our local church or synagogue, it is inconceivable to many of us that Muslim Imams would deliver sermons in Mosques all over the Muslim world labeling “Christians and Jews as the spawn of pigs and apes,” in which the destruction of Israel is called for and war against unbelivers is a frequent topic, or that Sesame Street-like children’s shows in Egypt and Palestine tell Muslim children that their highest ambition should be to be suicide bombers and die for Islam–MEMRI is a real eye opener.

P.S. I note that for some strange reason I misidentified Muslim apologist Karen Armstrong as Karen Johnson in my earlier post at 56.

# 122 Craig: Consider that one of the driving forces and challenges that our military faces, is the fact that with every change in administration and every time we commit to a military endeavor the citizens of a country we are occupying has no assurance that we are there for the long haul. It is not surprising that they play both sides of the fence. There is also that niggling problem we face in that part of the world. We are infidels.

There is a lack of appreciation that the Islamist threat is worse than the one we had during the Cold War–communists defected, governments changed, the Soviet Union ran out of money. The Islamists have plenty of money, their governments only get more rigid, and defectors have death sentences passed on them (“fatwas”).
We aren’t going to outlast them by pretending their calls for our destruction are just rhetoric.

On the other hand…Ernie Pyle had a great quote from a battalion commander in Germany late in WWII. Told by a frantic platoon leader that a Nazi counterattack was underway and a force of sixty Germans was coming straight at his platoon, the lieutenant colonel ended the call with a short order: “Shoot the sonsofbitches.”
My point–are we overcomplicating the issue? We need to get off our asses and take the fight to the enemy rather than wait for them to figure out a way to hammer us–again.

regarding this: “As a degree granting institution, the Army War College operates under a policy of academic freedom. Dr. Zuhur’s study on Hamas said, and I quote, “The views expressed in this report are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S.Government.” For some reason, Mr. Ricks neglected to mention that in his blog entry.”

Learning about the strategy, tactics, doctrine, and philosophy of the enemy in the classroom is one thing; incorporating it as official Army War College ciriculum is another.

I have read through a number of these comments but certainly not all and I find it interesting that I have seen nothing yet that discusses the Islamic issues that are arising in Europe and elsewhere regarding the Muslim/Islamic inroads that are taking place and gradually pushing aside the indigenous culture, law and life style, all with the goal of subjugating the local population to Sharia law and Sharia-compliant economics. The evidence is clear that as the percentage of a population that is Muslim in a country grows so does the strident nature of their activities in that country, all aimed at overturning the culture and laws of that country. While most of the west have taken the political correctness path of appeasement, Former Prime Minister Howard’s government in Australia made it pretty clear that they would not accept such behavior. It is about time we faced looked at the world as it is and not as we wish it were and acted accordingly and in the best interests of this nation and its citizens.

Melanie Phillips Londinistan looks at the problems in the UK. The book is important because it reflects what has happened in most European countries.

The contempt for, and sidlining of, UK history by those in power leaves a vacuum. Combine this with an official disdain for even the state religion coupled with the church’s move away from the scriptures in an effort to be more attractive.

What is there for an immigrant (or second generation) to bind to, everywhere he looks he is told the country has to atone for the depredations of its racist, imperialist,(You name it) past.

No wonder the immigrant is fodder for those who teach the stricter interpretations of the Koran.

Marc L. Sabin–We are focusing on a specifically U.S. incident here–on “the U.S. theater of war” as it were, as opposed to the myriad of other theaters in what is a Muslim Jihad against all “unbelievers” that is global in ambition and scope, and has been labeled by Norman Podhoretz as “World War IV.”

Unless something really radical happens–say full-blown civil wars throughout most of the countries of Europe, resulting in a lot of politicians, high government officials and other “leaders,” who have quite thoroughly sold out their various countries and peoples, ending up dangling from lampposts all over Europe, with massive attrition also occurring to the Muslim presence there–the race led by the EU, and joined by most leaders, defenders of the current establishment, enforcers of the law and opinion makers–to not defend their civilization, but instead to cravenly retreat in fear, panic and confusion in the face of the increasing intimidation, violence and constant pressure by Muslims and Islam, and to cede control of increasing parts of their territories, and all spheres of life in the various countries of Europe to Muslims and Islam is, if anything, accelerating. The coming of “Eurabia” to a “Post-Christian,” Europe that cannot even produce a “replacement birthrate” is, at this point, pretty much a done deal; one that the Europeans have almost exclusively brought on themselves. An unfortunately well-deserved fate that I don’t think we can or will save them from this time.

Europe is an object lesson, the “canary in the coal mine,” that–mislead and deluded by our Muslim enemy and all his allies and helpers and seduced, bespelled, hamstrung and blinkered by political correctness and multiculturalism as we currently are–we had better heed, or we too will be conquered and absorbed by the House of Islam, as Europe has a very good chance of being.

Here are some specific statistics that have made the rounds a few times and which ought to be considered the thread of responses to my original comment. Thanks for the considered responses that have been posted so far.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
…..
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
……
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

A couple of observations:
* War college is for LTC promotables and COL’s.
* By the time most officers my generation (Major, year group 96) get there, we’ll already have had 1-4 deployments in the box, living, breathing, and dying all aroung Islam.
* Regardless of the truth or fiction about the AWC watering down Islam and it’s true intent, we WILL discuss it and how to fight it, just like we did in CGSC-ILE last Summer when myself and 15 other Majors in my staff group, all with unique experiences in the GWOT came to the same consensus that Islam is the root of the current and many other terror problems.
* We are learning from our initial mistakes in the war

1. Agree completely with Wolla Dalbo! (And with many comments from others herein.)
2. Agree completely with Sabin; however, I would suggest that the U.S, Canada, and Italy (at a minimum) are already at a point where proselytizing/recruitment is an issue. I would also venture to say that there is already “inordinate influence in proportion to their [the Islamic] percentage of the population” in these countries. There is too much influence NOT to say anything that might upset minority Muslims – and it doesn’t have to be due to any ingrained conformance to PC considerations. It could easily be due to worry about the safety of family members, a need for job security, a lack of money for bodyguards, and a lack of desire to have your life turned upside-down for several years while being sued for every penny you have.
3. Having been a member of the U.S. government for 35+ years, I am very relieved that this discussion is even taking place. This time last year, I would have thought that we, as a country and a culture, were already hopelessly and utterly “doomed.” I’m still not so sure that we aren’t – it’s just nice to know that there are so many out there who see through the fog (whether that might be the “fog of war” or the “fog of enemy influence operations.”
4. I have been told that it is increasingly difficult for those with “western” names to obtain agreements for publication of academically sound analyses (whether or not they appear to be biased toward Islamists) in “mainstream” (popular or academic) venues. It has been suggested that the only true Islamic or Middle East “experts” being considered by the media (or for media and educational positions) are those with seemingly Islamic or Middle Eastern names. Any input on this issue would be much appreciated.

138 Sabin….thank you very much for posting these stats. Unsurprising, but very valuable to see. The pattern tracks with everything I’ve read about Muslim history and former Muslims who’ve bailed (such as Majahid El Masih) and are raising the alarm in the west (as well as they can).

140 Frustrated 2….don’t know what area of government you are in, but appreciate your comments.

If anyone INSIDE your area of government cares, tell them we are out here screaming and trying to get somebody to believe the barn’s on fire. We may not be “insiders”.

Most of us aren’t real clever or terribly cute. But we know the smell of smoke when there’s a fire, and we are desperately wondering when we are going to get some evidence that the “leaders” of these United States of America actually understand the dangerous reality of what is happening.

It’s just beyond comprehension that, with the whole gamut of history and currents events info avialable today, (apparently) NO ONE in “official government” is willing to be caught dead speaking openly about this threat.

They are going to have knock off the utter silence, the PC and the superior attitude of “oh, you’re over-reacting–you don’t have the whole picture.” Well, then, GIVE US THE WHOLE PICTURE, so that we can also conclude that there’s no danger.

Frustrated 2—I was amazed to find out about this whole scenario when I first ran across it, but I have seen ideology/group-think take over other academic specialties, and it really explains a lot.

As I posted earlier, starting with the 1979 publication of leftist Edward Said’s (http://tinyurl.com/7djr5y) “Orientalism”–the power and effect of which was tremendously boosted by the leftist Postmodernism that swept through the U.S. educational establishment at the same time—and in just a few years after it’s publication, Said & Co. succeeded in destroying the old “Orientalist” school.

Here is how Edward Kurtz, writing in the Weekly Standard, characterized “Orientalism”:

“The founding text of postcolonial studies, Orientalism effectively de-legitimated all previous scholarship on the Middle East by branding it as racist. Said drew no distinction between the most ignorant and bigoted remarks of nineteenth-century colonialists and the most accomplished pronouncements of contemporary Western scholars: All Western knowledge of the East was intrinsically tainted with imperialism.”

and after a very few years these “Orientalist” scholars and their works were thoroughly discredited, bypassed and, essentially, gone, and they were gradually replaced in various departments of Middle Eastern studies by people who were much more leftist in orientation, and who increasingly thought as Edward Said thought about the Middle East.

Then, at the same time—starting in the 1970s–came the Saudi push to fund and create a whole slew of new Middle Eastern departments, programs, chairs, study centers and scholarships at major U.S. universities, intended to turn out new generations of experts, hewing more closely to the Saudi/Wahabi line, and to gradually buy Saudi influence over our entire cadre of Middle East experts, and what they taught, wrote, said, and researched about the Middle East. Thus is created a new “standard view” of the Middle East and all the issues surrounding it.

In the early years, Saudi “donations” to U.S. universities used to be publicized; lately the Saudis and U.S. universities are usually much more reluctant to disclose details. One of the earliest Saudi donations had the requirement that the head of the new Saudi funded program was to be appointed by university authorities after the approval of the Saudi government’s Minister of Education (for a summary of some of these donations see here http://tinyurl.com/8k77ge and here http://tinyurl.com/7kyxln) .

Some examples of donations from the second source cited above:

“• $20 million to set up a Middle Eastern studies program by Saudi King Faud at the University of Arkansas
• $5 million to UC Berkley by two Saudi shaikhs with ties to al Queda,
• $22.5 million to Harvard
• $28.1 million to Georgetown,
• $11 million to Cornell,
• $5 million to MIT,
• $1.5 million to Texas A&M,
• $1 million to Princeton.
• Rutgers and Columbia each received a $5 million chair endowment. Columbia was apparently caught trying to conceal not only the monies received, but the source of it.”

Gradually, as these Saudi-friendly academics extended their influence throughout the Middle Eastern Studies community and amid the fertile ground of our leftist academic community and Saudi influence has gained increasing sway over decisions about who to hire, who to give book contracts, speaking engagements and various honors to, who to promote and, thus, to who gets tenure in the small, insular world of Middle Eastern Studies.

Gradually, too, the academics churned out by these new Saudi-funded Middle Eastern study organizations also took over academic organizations like the Middle Eastern Studies Association (MESA) (http://tinyurl.com/8s37rv) and whole university departments, like the one at Columbia, and such leftist, Saudi/Wahabi line influenced academics have now infiltrated and taken over practically the entire field of Middle Eastern studies, theirs is the new “received truth” and “the standard view”; the old Communist Party could not have done a more slick job.

So, the majority of students of Middle Eastern studies today are fed a constant diet of Saudi/Wahabi influenced and skewed propaganda by their teachers—a “party line.” If you want to get your PhD thesis approved, you need to have views and do research in areas that such Saudi-influenced academic apparatchiks approve of; you need to parrot the “party line.” Once you have your doctorate and start to look for an academic position, you will be interviewed and vetted by, and the decision to hire you will be made by, a committee made up mainly of such Saudi-influenced academics, and if hired, your entire academic career will be dependent on their approval of what and how you teach, write and speak.

A corollary of Said’s viewpoint is that no one who is not a Muslim from the Middle East can possibly analyze and write about the Middle East in an accurate and objective way, because all non-Muslims have an inherent racist bias. Thus, I would imagine, it would be harder and harder for non-Muslim academics–especially those who do not parrot the “party line”–to get their work published.

Yuval Brandstetter MD, You are right in saying ” Muslims don’t immigrate to integrate, they immigrate to conquer,” In 1974,Algerian President Houari Boumedienne,the man who ousted Ben Bella, three years after Algerian Independence, spoke before the General Assembly of the UN and without circumlocutions he said; “One day millions of men will leave the Southern hemisphere of this planet to burst in the Northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst into CONQUER, and they will CONQUER by populating it with their children.Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women” I ask you all, isn’t that what is happening 35 years after he spoke. Are the politicians in the West so thick that they can’t see what’s coming. God help us if we don’t wake up now. It is the do-gooders, PC brigade which is going to bring the West down to it’s knees. http://www.thereligionofpeace.comhttp://www.faithfreedom.orghttp://www.danielpipes.orghttp://www.copts.net

I have studied Islam and popular Islamic culture for the past 28 years and have analyzed what Sherifa Zuhur is doing.

Sherifa Zuhur writes insidiously, deliberately fudging issues, when she argues that… “the pathologizing impulse may be beneficial in rallying Americans to the defense of their nation…”
Here she is basically saying that patriotism (demeaned by her as a “pathologizing impulse”) is not beneficial for “international cooperation”.
Sherifa Zuhur deliberately wants to confuse things so much that her intention is clear: to dilute US patriotism to the point that Americans will not be able to call a spade a spade. (ie. a traitor a traitor)

That she is highly placed in the US military can only bode ill for the nation.
Quoting Sun Tzu is OK, but I rather quote Socrates, that in the face of the challenges posed by the Sophists it is of the utmost importance to have clear ideas.

Excuse please, MAJ Rakka, but is the school at Ft Leavenworth the “AWC” or another sort of command school, graduate war school, or whatever you call it? I had a friend there who went as a major; died in a car crash in mid-2008 (a semi ran him off the road) before they could send him back into the schitt. I can ask his widow what he got his, IIRC, Master’s in.

To Ann141 (comments 141/142): I most definitely understand/agree with the desperate nature of your posting. I’ve been screaming about that barn fire for some time – and have probably lost the friendship and respect of some very senior-level people because of it.

Unfortunately, all of the talk within govt. about the need to accept “risk” (on almost any topic, but mostly in regard to the continuing terrorist threat) is just that–talk. The simple truth is that few (close to zero) in senior levels of govt. want to risk being held accountable (thus the validity of your comment “NO ONE in ‘official government’ is willing to be caught dead speaking openly about this threat” – the operative word being “dead” [physically and/or professionally]). So, they either concentrate on issues that are less risky, or tow the “Extremely-PC” line.

The slightly more complex truth is that they (senior officials) are only being fed bits of data, which are increasingly filtered — based on whatever the briefer feels is most necessary and occasionally based on whatever the briefer feels the official wants to hear — through the levels of hierarchy with obnoxiously arrogant self-confidence on the part of those who are doing the spoon-feeding to the level above them. The spoon-feeders may or may not have the expertise necessary to make decisions on what should be briefed, let alone to answer questions; and they will most likely adhere to a perceived politically-correct line in order to ensure continued promotability and (of course) increased visibility. To make a very long story short, the result can be seen in a cadre of seniors who are equally (and obnoxiously) self-confident but oblivious. They think, by virtue of having been told by their own advisors through the various levels of in-house experts, that they know exactly what is going on. I, too, have been a victim of the “oh, you’re over-reacting–you don’t have the whole picture” response—several times. The fact that you can so readily describe that attitude here is indicative of a major failure of senior leadership to listen—or even WANT to listen. I suspect that takes us back to the issue of not “willing to be caught dead.”

To Wolla Dalbo (comment 143): Thank you for the very informative statistics as well as the comments and historical notes about how we got where we are today (regarding a reticence to accept the possibility of there being any non-Muslim expertise on issues pertaining to Islam and the Middle East. It would appear that this problem will only get worse as time goes by and we are all held to an ever-so-much-more-“Extremely-PC” mentality. Blogging and backyard publications may be the only way for those of us without Muslim-sounding names to get any information out to the general public.

To Lorenzo (comment 147): Thank you, also, for your comments about similar academic issues in Australia. It would appear that the “Extremely-PC” mentality has infected the entire Western world (culturally speaking, that is – I think many of our responses here are proof that we are not all, as individuals, blinded by wishful thinking). As others have already stated, this must end at some point — hopefully, it will end in time for someone to do something about the real threats that we are facing.

To Xavier Romero-Frias (comment 146): Thanks for the very interesting and insightful commentary on Zuhur.

Wow. I find this entire line of debate disturbing on so many levels that one hardly knows where to begin eating the elephant:

First, as a senior Special Forces officer, strategist, and graduate of the Army War College I have some fair knowledge and experience as to every aspect of this debate.

Second: The U.S. is not under attack by Islam; but the region of the world where the ability to achieve self-determined governance and popular sovereignty was suppressed by 65 years of Cold War engagement to deny the Soviets access to the resources and lines of communication in their lands are primarily Muslim.

Third: All insurgencies require the use of some ideology to rally the populace to stand up to the existing governance. The Europeans who deisred to throw off the Holy Roman Empire used “radical Christianity” during the Reformation to achieve those ends. All of us who are Protestants share in that radical extremist genesis. It makes equal sense for a similar political movement to break the extrenal controls of local governments in the Middle East would use “radical Islam.” Few things motivate like religion.

Fourth: Bin Laden is not leading a “Global Insurgency” to destroy the West, but he is absolutely taking advantage of the tools of globalization to wage a regional Unconventional Warfare campaign to rally many disparate local insurgent movements that primarily want self-determination at home, but share in a common belief that phase one to success at home is to break the support from abroad to those existing governments that were imposed upon them.

Fifth and finally: I have little tolerence for fear-based hate mongering. It accomplishes little. The U.S. is armed with a powerful ideology of freedom, self-determination, and popular sovereignty. We will prevail in the current troubles coming out of the Muslim world when we finally set aside our Cold War strategies; relinquish efforts to implement a controlling influence that denies for other populaces what we demand for ourselves; and become the enabler of U.S.-style principles, vice an imposer of current U.S. values.

One man’s opinion, not that of any organization that I am, or have been associated with in the past.

Suggest some of you read it before you comment.
It concerns Israeli strategy and not only Hamas, and he also explained that all of SSI’s monographs are published with a disclaimer stating that DoD is not endorsing our views. However, I stand by my 30 years of experience as a researcher of Islamist movements and particular conflicts in the Middle East. It was important to speak to Hamas and its base to research this monograph & I will write more about it in other fora.

Sadly, yes, the comments about Ricks went beyond us and I for one wish he had spoken at AWC instead of at our nearby liberal arts college on his book on Fiasco. And sadly yes, we are “censored” in the sense that we undergo severe attempts to force us to change actual facts in our writing, or wording, and I have been severely criticized by Metz for comments to the press, which I believe to be illegal and ideologically motivated. And I and others have been, on occasion, not permitted to speak to the press. And that violates our Academic Freedom policy.

Romero misconstrued my statement about pathologizing – which refers to US pathologizing of Muslims, and failure to distinguish the truly dangerous (to the US) from those with other immediate interests.

Ricks on Perry’ remarks were totally off! In fact, the opposite is true – AWC does not properly cover many aspects of Muslim beliefs because of the fever of Islamophobia — and also – it isn’t a 4 year college, only so much time to cover crucial issues. Our Dean and instructors determine curriculum – not SSI by the way.

Yes, as a Muslim, I disagree with & am horrified by lots of what is on this site — that does not make me a “fifth column” but an American with a different set of information than you possess. And an American who believes that we citizens of the world have a duty to heal and prevent conflicts and misunderstandings.

“Yes, as a Muslim, I disagree with & am horrified by lots of what is on this site — that does not make me a “fifth column” but an American with a different set of information than you possess. And an American who believes that we citizens of the world have a duty to heal and prevent conflicts and misunderstandings.”

Funny, as an American, I disagree with and am horrified by beheadings, stonings, mutilations, suicide bombings, honor killings, FGM, and so forth. You disagree with and are horrified by harsh criticism. I don’t know what that makes you, but it seems pretty undesirable. Funny also, this is not the first time I have heard a terror apologist say that our words hurt more than your sticks and stones.

I don’t know what information you have that justifies whining about our reaction to the stimuli provided by the people you are being paid to help us fight. Feel free to share.

Are you an American, or a citizen of the world? Do you have a US passport or a “world” passport? More than one? Where were you born? Raised? What is your native language? What would they do to you if you went home and told them what you’d been doing for the past 30 years?

I guess by “citizen of the world” you mean “everybody.” OK, you are not the only one on earth to use grand sounding hollow phrases built up of empty words…but maybe it’s the Ummah’s turn to honor this duty to heal and prevent conflicts and misunderstandings?

Look, if you’re going to be a chieu hoi for the Army, then be a good one. Help us win the war. If not, why don’t you strap on a bomb and see how much of the AWC you can take out. It would be more honest and straightforward than to poison people’s minds with your null content.

It is a surreal experience to try to argue with pasted comments in which people insist on rationalizing their stereotypes! Several points- 1. to #43: “google up” or looking at my picture won’t tell you much because NO faculty at the War College can wear hijab or proper covering! Only the wives of international fellows can. There is a rule against headgear and a business dress code (which means Western business dress). Barracks personnel demand to see my accomodation letter when I have worn a scarf, so I don’t bother. *”Deep cover for the Ummah” — all Muslims are part of the ummah (and no, Dr. Metz, I’m not ‘born again’) but I write as an individual. So #43 it is you who insist on stereotyping me!

2. Edward Said, a great scholar of literature, and post-colonial thought was not a Muslim and as an accomplished pianist and music critic, does not fit your kooky description of a ‘master of deception’ either.

“from 43 google up Dr. Sherifa Zuhur and you will find that she APPEARS as a Westernized, secularized Arab. I think this woman is either deep cover for the Ummah or is a cultural Marxist hybrid straddling both the Western Left and her Islamic roots. She wears no hijab and certainly none of the required wardrobe associated with female modesty in the Muslim world.Those who are familiar with the late Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University (and one of the influences in Barack Obama’s life) would know that he also straddled the ….”

3. In my monograph I discuss the Hamas Charter. The organization doesn’t use it anymore. Best to look at the org’s 2000 mission statement.
4. I think the Perry-Ricks comment is wrong! The College teaches practically nothing about ‘normal’ or mainstream Islam and ONLY focuses on the Islamophobic portrayal of extremism somewhat as you keep describing it in these posts. Some faculty (& students & staff) misdescribe the Muslim sects, traditions, beliefs, etc. That makes for terrible misunderstandings and gaps in analysis, especially as there are strong disagreements about the basis of, or reasons for extremist Islam. Maybe that’s why we had ludicrous EEO investigation of the Quran we were using in our prayer space at the College last May, and I was asked for my “assistance” to remove the “intolerant and violent” book. Which was as annoying as some of your wonderfully enlightened posts!

Oh I see that Dr. Metz mischaracterized my expertise as well as my “job” at the Army War College

“Dr. Zuhur’s job at the Army War College was to research and publish on thinking in the Islamic world. The assertion that there is “unbalanced and biased Muslim influence” at the Army War College is not correct. In fact, Mr Couglin spoke here a few weeks ago”

FALSE. Dr. Metz and others at SSI are as prejudiced as rest of you in thinking that a Muslim canonly be an expert on Muslims! Dr. Metz are you an expert on the nat’l security of white Christians? Is Dr. Terrill an expert on white agnostics? My “job” was as professor of national security affairs to write on matters of military and strategic import IN the Muslim world and the Middle East.

And indeed, Mr. Coughlin, who misadvertises himself as supposed expert on Islamic law spoke on jihad at the AWC. Unfortunately no real background to Islamic law was given since he insists on confusing his interpretations of jihad doctrines with shari’ah (some are from it, some are not)

Do you speak English or are you relying on translate.google.com? How can you define my post as “hate speech?” Because you hate to hear it? Yes, the truth hurts. (Cf. Truman: “I tell them the truth and they think it’s hell.”)

Yeah, I know President Obama talks about ‘citizens of the world.’ He is wrong too, so invoking his name doesn’t give you cover. If Obama and his Cabinet jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you jump too?

I think you could stand to respond to my entire post but if that’s too hard for you, I will reiterate the part that really sticks in my craw:

As an American, I disagree with and am horrified by beheadings, stonings, mutilations, suicide bombings, honor killings, FGM, and so forth. You disagree with and are horrified by freely expressed opinions on Internet forums.

What is the matter with your values? Are you confused about the events to which I refer?

I repeat: your job is to save American lives, not play Internet censor. Do you think you could do that, please? If not, I don’t understand why my taxes should pay your salary.

“Dr. Metz and others at SSI are as prejudiced as rest of you in thinking that a Muslim canonly be an expert on Muslims!”

You’re hired for your expertise on Muslims/Islam. If one hires a prostitute, one probably don’t care if she can also cook or sew.

We’re not interested in your being happy or feeling good about your job, but in your doing it. Do it or don’t, please. If you don’t, please quit. I won’t say “go back where you came from” as that might be considered hate speech, but one wonders what there is for you here, with all these horrifying critical words and no way to stop them (pesky First Amendment and all that).

I mean, even if they stone you, at least you won’t have to be insulted with horrible words!

…

By the way, have you been posting to this non-work-related site using government resources and on the government’s time? Naughty, naughty. Some would consider this theft.

What would happen to you under Islamic jurisprudence for stealing from your employer? Cut off your hand, right? Or would it be OK because the US government isn’t an Islamic entity?

….

Wait! You also say:

“Barracks personnel demand to see my accomodation letter when I have worn a scarf, so I don’t bother.”

So a little thing like showing your “accommodation letter” stops you from being a good Muslim? Or are you saying this scarf requirement is really BS used to make trouble? Maybe you’re not the expert on Islam after all.

Worse, you make Americans look like worms to the rest of the world, and thus undermine our security (and our childrens’ futures). Keep up the good work, and your courage!

George, Dick and Don, thanks for stirring up noble warriors like nichevo; our military-industrial compex and the politicians who like to control the pork spigots love the “Long War” and committed jihadis like him!

Tommy, you know nothing about me and I find I like it better that way. You’re apparently no better than I am, by your own standards, to attack and criticize me in this scurrilous, ad hominem fashion. Oh the humanity! Boo hoo!

And I notice she no longer cares to explain herself. Out of lies, perhaps? She can’t justify herself, because she is in the wrong and she knows it. I am not concerned with the sequelae of a shame culture; I am not interested in saving her face; what right has she to face when a Daniel Pearl or a Matt Maupin doesn’t have a head! But she is horrified that people are (correctly, accurately) VERBALLY mean to her!

Save your squeals and your sincerity. It wouldn’t be a Long War if we just nuked them! Do you understand, does she understand, that for the past seven-odd years under the leadership of President Bush, we have desperately been trying to avert the necessity of killing them all?

That’s what she should be doing, helping us beat them with conventional means so we don’t have to burn them out like termite’s nests. Horrified? She doesn’t know horror! Worthless creature!

nichevo, I attacked you in a scurrilous, ad hominem fashion? Thank you for noticing! The question is, do you like what you see in the mirror?

she no longer cares to explain herself. Out of lies, perhaps?

Maybe she just has better things to do than waste her time with someone who, despite meeting her for the first time, apparently hates her passionately and prefers – over polite discourse with a guest, to spew venomous and scurrilous ad homs?

Save your squeals and your sincerity.

Maybe you didn’t notice, but my first post included no squeals and wasn’t sincere – both were more than you deserved.

It wouldn’t be a Long War if we just nuked them!

If we just nuked them, then there wouldn’t be much left of the Promised Land, would there? Plus, we’d have a tough time getting petroleum out of the Middle East and Malaysia & Indonesia, not to mention light a fire under the nukular proliferation problem.

BTW, who benefits from Long Wars – apart from those who sell hate/fear and instruments of destruction? Bush/Cheney created a powerful White House, while he defense industry and other insiders made out like bandits. Iran didn’t do too badly, either. You and I and our kids got stuck holding the bag. Maybe paleocons and libertarians – and our military leaders – who say we
ought to just back off a little and stop disrupting oil markets might have a point? Same thing happens in Israel and the OT/Gaza BTW: nothing like wise politicians to bring their peoples war.

BTW, see this chapter on Israel nuclear policy by Zeev Maoz, Professor at UC Davis (former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and the Jaffee Center of Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv U., and former director of the MA Program of the IDF’s National Defense College), from his book, Defending the Holy Land?

for the past seven-odd years under the leadership of President Bush, we have desperately been trying to avert the necessity of killing them all?

I call BS. Ask Jim Baker and all other Republicans who have a lick of sense. What we’ve concretely accomplished is a looting of our Treasury and a lowering of our security, all for the benefit of enemies. Why you want more of the same is beyond me – other than you enjoy the heady brew of righteousness and moral clarity that justifies killing hundreds of millions in “self-defense”. That there are willing dupes like you so easily stirred ups is precisely why our politicians do so. (Not so different from how leftists stir up fear of evil corproations.)

Worthless creature!

Take it up with the Lord God, none of whose creatures are worthless. Even you.

“nichevo, I attacked you in a scurrilous, ad hominem fashion? Thank you for noticing! The question is, do you like what you see in the mirror?”

Kidding, right? Never mind that it was pathetic, let’s say that yours were actually trenchant blows that sent me reeling (lol). Could I possibly say that I find it horrifying, more so than the actions of our (I trust, “our?”) murderous enemies?

Oh I will say – worthless is in the eye of the beholder – I only contend that she is worthless to the USG, her employer, if this is her thinking. She may be very useful to whoever it is that actually holds her allegiance. Which apparently is the Ummah, not USG.

nichevo: Onward, Christian soldier! If you get discouraged though, remember that it’s God’s Plan to let the Earth be overrun by scum (people of the wrong denomination and ALL non-Christians), and then to whisk the Faithful Ones like you off to a better place.

TT, keep being wrong, you should stick to what you’re good at. But I notice the traitress is gone (sensible, as she was mincemeat and knew it), so my work here is done. Be not afraid, as the Bible says.

Remarkable Christian-bashing enthusiasm, you must really hate Christ (which seems a waste of time spent on a dead guy who you probably don’t believe anything about anyway). I wonder what you would say if you knew I was Jewish…or Mormon…or Wiccan…or Buddhist…or Muslim, and not making me out to be some footwashing Baptist, or maybe a Cossack type Orthodox pogrommer?

Sherifa is free to be what faith she likes. She is just not welcome to harm the war effort, that’s my only problem with her (that, and her apparent low intelligence).

Or atheist, of course. Maybe my religion is America, Western Civilization, or Humanity. From that perspective she is even more clearly evil. At least as a theist I appreciate her striving for the divine. As a nonbeliever she’s just the more barbaric sort of fool.

The purpose of war is the break the WILL of your enemy. It has always been that way. one can attack an enemy within the sub-groups of the 4 Instruments of National Power until the WILL is broken. The Terrorists and our enemies are very effective using this strategy against America.
The 4 Instruments of National Power are;

POLITICAL;
ECONOMIC;
PSYCHO-SOCIAL
MILITARY;

Brief examples;
POLITICAL; Our POLITICAL system is in chaos, confusion, turmoil, in conflict with one another and corrupt.

ECONOMIC; We are buried in unacceptable debt and deficit right now and are adding to it by the hour. This will: make the U. S Dollar crash in terms of fiat money of the world; in turn this will cause world ECONOMIC chaos; in turn, there will be a world ECONOMIC collapse that will provide an enhanced environment to recruit terrorist against the scapegoat, Americana. [against American values and the USA‘s default to the entire world by going off the Gold Standard, [Nixon, 1971] .

PSYCHO-SOCIAL: AMERICA and the West can’t stomach the Cost of Freedom under the strategy being used today. Consequently their WILL is being broken; body bags of American Boys, economic costs of the war, inability to fight the Nation State Style of war like WWI, WWII, and our inability to use CBR weapons for political correctness; the terrorist commitment to die for their beliefs to break our WILL is stronger than the average military man or guy in the streets of America.

MILITARY; Conscription is against the American way, per Vietnam; desertions will follow, students will demonstrate, no effective strategy to fight committed killers among the populous of Western World citizens.

1. My colleague, Zuhur is not a foreign national.
2. It is true that the War College has a huge problem, but NOT in failing to cover “radical Islam” — the problem is that is the only aspect they cover [and very poorly].
3. Also true that there are huge problems with academic freedom and SSI folks were punished for anything they said to the press, and what they wrote.
3. Zuhur was not hired to “research and write about Islamic thinking” NB Metz’s post. She came to write about the insurgency in Iraq and he wouldn’t let her (tried to write it himself with no Arabic, and no background & no understanding of Iraq) SSI specializes in strategy, foreign policy as it relates to strategy, and the analysis of conflicts, not religous philosophy. But she was forced to co-author a piece relating to Muslim doctrines & treated like a piece of X… by Metz, and others.

“honest abe” knows not of what he (or she) speaks. Whoever that is was not involved in SSI’s hiring and therefore has no idea what people were hired to do. SSI does not hire people to write about a single topic. If “abe” were truly in the know, he or she would understand that. They might also know that Dr. Zuhur never proposed writing an SSI study about the insurgency in Iraq.

–the statement that “SSI folks were punished for anything they said to the press, and what they wrote” is false
–the statement that “She came to write about the insurgency in Iraq and he wouldn’t let her” is false. That was specifically what Dr. Zuhur was hired to do. While I at least (and I’m not speaking for SSI) would have welcomed a study from her on that topic, she never proposed writing one at SSI’s annual research plan development meeting. So the idea that a “wouldn’t let her” is false.
–the assertion that Dr. Zuhur “was forced to co-author a piece relating to Muslim doctrines” is false.
–the assertion that Dr. Zuhur was “treated like a piece of X… by Metz, and others” is false. Like everyone else in SSI, she was held accountable for following the policies and prcticing the values she agreed to by accepting a job at SSI.

I am in no way making these points as a representative of the Strategic Studies Institute or the Army War College. I now have no position of authority over Dr. Zuhur. As someone who knows the truth, I am simply pointing out the false statements in less-than-honest abe’s post.

I want to correct a typo in my own post #175. In the second bullet, the second sentence should read “That was NOT specifically what Dr. Zuhur was hired to do.” As I noted above, people are hired at SSI for their broad expertise, not to write on a single topic or issue.

Again, I am not making these points as a representative of the Strategic Studies Institute or the Army War College. I have no position of authority over Dr. Zuhur. As someone who knows the truth, I am simply pointing out the false statements in less-than-honest abe’s post.

Perry and Ricks are both a couple of isolationist Pentagon haters. They would dismantle our magnificent military piece by piece and turn the oceans into a moat. Perry is the guy who called our soldiers in WWII Europe cowards and rapists, and accused the US population of getting “tired” of WWII in 1944.

Either Perry and Ricks will really their vision of what America is and ought to be, or they won’t. I do hope they fail.

Thanks for giving your ideas. The first thing is that students have an alternative between government student loan as well as a private student loan where it can be easier to go for student loan debt consolidation loan than with the federal student loan.

One thing is that if you find yourself searching for a student loan you may find that you will want a co-signer. There are many circumstances where this is correct because you will find that you do not employ a past credit rating so the bank will require you have someone cosign the money for you. Interesting post.

Thanks for this article. I might also like to express that it can be hard when you find yourself in school and simply starting out to initiate a long credit standing. There are many learners who are only trying to make it through and have a lengthy or positive credit history can occasionally be a difficult element to have.

I have learned several important things as a result of your post. I might also like to express that there will be a situation that you will apply for a loan and don’t need a cosigner such as a Government Student Support Loan. When you are getting credit through a classic bank or investment company then you need to be made ready to have a co-signer ready to make it easier for you. The lenders will probably base their own decision on the few aspects but the most important will be your credit history. There are some loan providers that will likewise look at your work history and make up your mind based on that but in most cases it will hinge on your scores.

One other issue is when you are in a circumstances where you will not have a co-signer then you may want to try to exhaust all of your federal funding options. You can find many grants or loans and other scholarships and grants that will supply you with funding to assist with education expenses. Many thanks for the post.